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 7 March 2018

The minutes of the meeting held on 7 March 2018 were presented.

Resolved:

To approve as a correct record and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 7 March 2018.

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

Councillor Ernie Clark referred to his register 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.

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.

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

The Planning Appeals Update Report for 23/02/2018 and 18/05/2018 was received.

Resolved:

To note the Planning Appeals Update Report for 23/02/2018 and 18/05/2018

To consider and determine the following planning applications.

Public Participation

Martyn Jones spoke in support of the application.

Steve Yalland, applicant, spoke in support of the application.

Cllr Fisher of Hilperton Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application.

Steve Sims, Senior Planning Officer, introduced the report following its deferment from the December 2017 meeting, and recommended approval be granted for Siting of a temporary rural workers dwelling and access track.

Key issues included; the scale of the development, the visual impact upon the surrounding area, the design - bulk, height, general appearance, the environmental and highway impacts, the financial viability of the proposed development, that areas of the 'rented land' seem to have only informal grazing rights at limited times of the year; and the amount of land owned by the applicant was not large enough to warrant any type of agricultural dwelling.

Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. Details were sought on the viability of the business, the need for accommodation year round and on which piece of land the accommodation would be located.

Members of the public, as detailed above, had the opportunity to speak on the application. 

Local Member Councillor Ernie Clark spoke on the application noting that he supported the business however he expressed concerns about whether there was an essential need for the proposed on site accommodation.

A motion was moved to refuse the application by Councillor Ernie Clark and seconded by Councillor Andrew Davis.

A debate followed and the members were informed that officers had obtained an updated appraisal from the Council’s agricultural consultant who had concluded that the on-site farming practice justified a temporary dwelling, especially in terms of the lambing husbandry responsibilities,

A vote was taken and the motion was lost. 

Motion to move the officer’s recommendation, with a note that the temporary accommodation would be available for three years from the date of the decision made, was moved by Councillor Jonathon Seed and seconded by Councillor Sarah Gibson.

At the end of the debate it was;

Resolved:

To approve temporary 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 approved plans:

Proposed Site Location Plan; Site plan scale 1:500 received 19 May 2017; Proposed Layout and Elevations Plan (dwg no. 2629/02) received 19 May 2017; Septic Tank details received 19 May 2017; Attenuation treatment details received 19 May 2017; Visibility splay details received 27 July 2017.

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

3          The occupation of the temporary dwelling hereby approved shall be limited to a person solely or mainly working, or last working, in the locality in agriculture or in forestry, or  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.

Public Participation

Lucy Bray spoke in objection to the application.

Lucy Street spoke in support of the application.

Mark Street spoke in support of the application.

Patricia Molyneux spoke in support of the application.

Cllr Maria Ironside, Upton Lovell Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application.

David Cox, Senior Planning Officer, introduced the report which recommended approval be granted subject to conditions for a change of use from agricultural land to a dog exercise area with retention of a small paddock for agricultural use.

As part of the case officer’s verbal presentation, Members were informed that two ‘late’ written representations both in support of the application had been received. Members were also advised that the shepherds hut was no longer a constituent part of the application.

The key issues were identified as; the principle of the development, impact on neighbouring amenity, impact on the visual amenity and the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, drainage and flood risk, highway safety and parking, impact on ecology and the impact on designated heritage assets.

Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. Details were sought on the monitoring and any lodged complaints received to date from dogs barking and the disposal of dog waste.

Members of the public, as detailed above, had the opportunity to speak on the application. 

A motion to approve a temporary permission for two years was moved by the Chairman and seconded by Councillor Trevor Carbin

A debate followed and the key points included: that if the land was open, many dog walkers could use it, many more than proposed.

At the end of the debate it was;

Resolved:

To approve temporary permission for two years from the date of decision  subject to the following conditions:

Public Participation

Lyn Ashton, applicant, spoke in support of the application.

Cllr Sue Fraser, Warminster Town Council, spoke in objection to the application.

David Cox, Senior Planning Officer, introduced the report which recommended approval be granted subject to conditions for a change of use to part of the existing building from residential to nursery uses (Part Retrospective) and Variation of Condition 3 of planning consent W/06/00806/FUL to change the permitted number of children at the nursery from 45 to 70.

The key issues were identified as; the principle of the development, impact on neighbouring amenity, impact on highway safety and the impact on designated heritage assets.

Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. Details were sought on: Access in and out of the setting, highways concerns and details on the lack of childcare spaces in the town.

Members of the public, as detailed above, had the opportunity to speak on the application. 

The local unitary member, Councillor Pip Ridout then spoke in relation to the application noting the excellent work provided by the nursery and expressed concern over the number of children that would be accommodated within the premises and the increased amount of traffic.

A motion was moved by the Chairman to approve temporary permission for two years which was seconded by Councillor Jonathon Seed.

A debate followed and the key points included: that the number of the childcare spaces was too high and the need to monitor the application over the two year period to assess the successfulness of the changes including changes of the staff parking being proposed by the nursery owner.

At the end of the debate it was;

Resolved:

To approve temporary permission for two years from the date of decision subject to the following conditions:

Public Participation

Philip Bradley spoke in objection to the application.

David Pringle spoke in objection to the application.

Robert Gillespie, agent, spoke in support of the application.

Steven Vellance, Planning Officer, introduced the report which recommended approval be granted for a change of use of former car park land to a car wash facility with the erection of an enclosed sound proofed building, with new drainage and associated works (Resubmission of 17/05075/FUL).

As part of the case officer’s verbal presentation, Members were advised that the references made to ‘revocation’ on page 85 at paragraphs 4 and paragraph 5 on page 86 should instead have read as ‘nullification’

The key issues were identified as; the principle of the development, impact on neighbouring amenity, impact on highway safety, impact on drainage and the impact on designated heritage assets.

At 17:20, due to unforeseen circumstances the meeting had to move to another venue, at which point, the meeting paused and resumed at 17.30 in the Kennet room.

On the resumption of the meeting, Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. Details were sought on the proposed operating protocols; whether the doors in the new building would be shut whilst the cars were being washed; the amount of noise from the new car wash; what the proposed generators would be used for; what the temperature controls would be during the summer months; clarifying increased pollution levels from cars waiting to go into the car wash; what the land would be used for beyond the fenced off part of the site; whether the size and design of the development would fit in with the local area; and in addition, details were sought on the existing permission on the land and the system for waste water.

Officers reported that the car wash would be able to accommodate up to two cars at a time, the door would open to let the cars in and out and close during the cleaning process operations. That the noise levels would be significantly lower than the current provision as it would be enclosed compared to the existing open air facility; and would be located further from residential boundaries; and that a noise survey had been completed and based on doors being open, there would be an overall betterment compared to the existing arrangements and processes. Members were informed that the generators were required to operate the valeting equipment. No information had been received on temperature controls during the summer months, although experts had inspected the plans and were satisfied. Members were advised that the site was a former car park and is currently used for cars parked up awaiting car wash and valeting.  The size and design of the proposed bespoke car wash facility building had been negotiated by officers.  The height of the building would be lower than the adjacent barn on the neighbouring land and would not appear out of keeping or visually obtrusive from the public realm or nearby  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21a

Public Participation

Mr Cassidy spoke in support of the application.

Kenny green, Team Leader, introduced the report which recommended refusal for an erection of a detached building.

The key issues were identified as; the principle of the development, development plan policy conflict, impact on the character of the area, impact on residential amenity, sustainability and highways matters.

Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. Details were sought on  whether the site would be classed as a brownfield site and whether the site could be supported as an infill opportunity.

The Officer informed Members that the site was not part of a designated settlement and that it was classed as being located in the open countryside and in such locations; the adopted Wiltshire Core Strategy required a planning justification for new housing.  Members were informed that the applicant had recently converted the former Kicking Donkey public house and had taken over its former car park and submitted this application seeking to build a new house for himself arguing in part, that the site was too large for a domestic garden. Members were informed that this was insufficient grounds to justify a grant of planning permission.  Members were also advised that following the conversion of the former pub, the land which is now within residential curtilage is not considered brownfield land.

Members of the public, as detailed above, had the opportunity to speak on the application. 

The local unitary member, Councillor Horace Prickett spoke in support of the application. He gave an outline of the history of the site noting that the development would match the street scene, no consultees had rejected the plans, no one from the community area had objected to the development, that the community had a need for new builds and the village had a desire to reasonably expand.

A motion to move the officers recommendation was moved by the Chairman and seconded by Councillor Trevor Carbin.

A debate followed whereby the adopted policies of the WCS were duly noted.

At the end of the debate it was;

Resolved

To refuse planning permission for the following reasons:

1.    The proposed site is located in the open countryside outside any identified limits of development which has not been allocated for residential development within the Wiltshire Core Strategy (January 2015), a Housing Site Allocations DPD or Neighbourhood Plan. The development fails to satisfy the policy based criteria which support the delivery of additional residential units in the open countryside, and in the absence of a robust planning justification, the proposal is not considered to be a sustainable form of development and is contrary to Core Policies 1, 2, 29, 60 & 61 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy.

2.    The proposed development would constitute as unwarranted encroachment of the open countryside, without any justification. The proposal would lead to the loss of a spatial gap between existing buildings that would introduce an urbanising effect that would harm the rural character and appearance of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21b

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