Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

There were no apologies.

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 11 January 2018.

The minutes of the meeting held on 11 January 2018 were presented.

Resolved:

To approve as a correct record and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 11 January 2018.

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

In relation to application 17/05669/FUL Councillors Peter Fuller, Edward Kirk and Stewart Palmen declared non-pecuniary interests by virtue of being members of Trowbridge Town Council.

To receive any announcements through the Chair.

The Chairman gave details of the procedure 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 28 February 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 2 March 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.

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

The rules of public participation and the procedure to be followed at the meeting were noted.

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

A planning appeals update report was received, along with a report from the Head of Development Management regarding a December 2017 Supreme Court ruling (under Dover District Council v CPRE Kent) pursuant to a decision made by Dover District Council on a hybrid planning application and its implications.  In referencing the published information report, the reporting officer reminded members of the legal duties imposed on decision makers to state material planning reasons when making decisions on planning applications. The officer also informed the committee of the importance attached to seeking officer guidance and advice prior to voting on a motion to deviate from an officer recommendation.

Resolved:

To note the Planning Appeals Update Report and the legal update from the Head of Development Management.

To consider and determine the following planning applications.

Public Participation

Nigel Urch spoke in objection to the application

Julia Urch spoke in objection to the application

Anthony Barber spoke in objection to the application

Chris Beaver, agent, spoke in support of the application

Eileen Medlin, Senior Planning Officer, presented a report which recommended that authority be delegated to the Head of Development Management to grant full planning permission subject to planning conditions and informatives and following the completion of a draft s106 Agreement to cover the necessary developer obligations, as summarised within section 10 of the report and as stipulated at condition 23 and to approve planning permission for the erection of 79 dwellings and associated works, following the demolition of existing buildings.

Updates to the report were explained, which included the recommendation of imposing an additional condition to bind any consent to prevent development being commenced until the planning obligations in a form annexed to the planning permission has been completed by all parties with an interest in the development land and approved in writing by the Council. The officer also reported a correction to the report relative to the number of trees that would be removed from the site which currently have Tree Protection Orders (TPO).

Key issues included the principle of development, impact upon trees, highways and parking and education provision.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. In response to question relating to the reported education objection, the reporting officer advised members that earlier in the day, a meeting had taken place involving service directors and senior officers from development management as well as the education and estates team. Committee members were informed of the adopted methodology used to calculate future school places by the education service and their appraisal of existing school capacities.

The reporting officer informed the committee that following a detailed inspection of the latest shared calculations, several applications documented by the education team as being ahead in the application registration queue that would generate school space demand, had been recently refused by the planning authority; whilst others had appeals withdrawn or were considered to be undeliverable. 

In the case of the projected strategic development at Ashton Park members were informed that the indicative housing trajectories and subsequent school demands to be generated by the development is likely to be delayed by several years at least. Members were further advised that planning officers had properly weighed up the education objection, had recognised the reasons behind the objection, but argued that the application must be appraised in light of current spare school infrastructure provision and be fully mindful of the evolving status of planning applications and appreciate that once an application is refused and appeal is dismissed or withdrawn, the associated calculated school needs should be deleted and in terms of the current application, there is a need to apply the appropriate NPPF and WCS policy tests in terms of supporting sustainable housing development proposals.

As a result, and in light of the above,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Public Participation

David Tombleson spoke in objection to the application.

Colin Tagg spoke in objection to the application.

Neil Brawn spoke in objection to the application.

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

Mr Pratt, applicant, spoke in support of the application.

Councillor Jeff Ligo, Chairman of Bratton Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application.

Steven Vellance, Planning Officer, presented a report which recommended that permission be granted for a variation to condition 14 of planning permission W/12/02101/S73 to allow for minor material alterations and additions to the previously approved dwelling that had bene partially constructed on site. Key issues included the principle of the development, reflecting upon the minor material changes that had been undertaken and comparing these with what had been previously approved in 2012. 

The officer explained why the planning team had registered and processed the application under s73 of the Town and Country Planning Act; and had, after visiting the site, took physical measurements of the building to firstly obtain accurate plans from the applicant; and secondly, to allow officers to make a full and proper assessment of the modifications made and proposed on the site.  

The officer advised members of the receipt of two late public representations which were verbally reported along with an officer response to each point raised.

The committee was advised of the inspections carried out by the Council’s conservation officer who, in addition to the case officer, made a site inspection and reported that the works which had been undertaken (included within the submitted regularised retrospective application submission) was acceptable in terms of adopted and legislative standards and policies.  In addition to heritage asset and planning policy interests, expert input was obtained in terms of highway safety and flood risk impacts, and the responses were also reported.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. Detailed questions were asked about the roofing material used on the ‘as built’ house compared to what was previously approved; and about the extent of the physical amendments made to the site and house compared to the consented scheme.

Officers reported the physical measurements which had been taken on site and with the fixed datum point of Mill Lane that had not changed since 2012 officers reported that the ‘as built’ house had a lower ridgeline compared to what was previously consented. The fenestration changes were reported as being minor material changes the s73 application could adequately appraise as well as the minor amendments made to the site. It was also reported that under the separate building arrant process, the Council’s building control surveyors had visited the site and had checked drawings and had found them to be accurate.

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

A statement from the local unitary member, Councillor Jerry Wickham, citing opposition to the application was presented by Councillor Jonathon Seed, which included an appraisal of the site history  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

Public Participation

Margaret Donald spoke in objection to the application.

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

Councillor Sue Fraser, on behalf of Warminster Town Council, spoke in objection to the application.

Katie Yeoman, Planning Officer, presented a report which recommended planning permission be granted for the erection of a dwelling. Key issues included the principle of development, highway safety matters, landscape and trees, drainage, and impacts on neighbouring amenity.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. Details were sought about the adjoining site’s planning history and officers were asked about previously refused developments based on highway safety and loss of a hedgerow and roadside embankment.  Ecology and tree impacts were discussed as well the implications relative to a nearby bus-stop and the reported need for it to be relocated.

Members were also advised that the historic refusals relating for a neighbouring plot dated back to 1999, 2007 and 2008 and since then, local and national planning policy had evolved, although it still remained the case that that the hedgerow and embankment could be removed without planning permission.  No highway safety concern had been raised by the Council’s highways officer and members were reminded of the Council’s and NPPF policy relative to highway safety and that there was no evidence the proposed development would result in harm to justify a refusal.

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

The local unitary member, Councillor Andrew Davis, then spoke in opposition to the application, and also considered further information was required and sought to have a highway officer present.

A debate followed where the design and nature of the proposed dwelling was considered in relation to the neighbouring area, along with further discussion of the practicalities of moving the bus-stop.

During debate a motion to defer the application for a site visit and to request additional information was moved by Councillor Andrew Davis, seconded by Councillor Pip Ridout. Following a vote the motion was defeated.

A motion was then moved by Councillor Trevor Carbin, seconded by Councillor Sarah Gibson, to approve the application in accordance with the officer’s recommendation.

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: Location plan – received on 15/12/2017; Existing and proposed sections - received on 15/12/2017; Existing and proposed street scene - received on 15/12/2017; Proposed site plan and roof plan - received on 15/12/2017; Parking Plan Space 1 - received on 15/12/2017; Parking Plan Space 2 - received on 15/12/2017; Proposed elevations  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

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