Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

There were no apologies for absence.

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

The minutes of the meeting held on 27 June 2018 were presented.

Resolved:

To approve as a correct record and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 27 June 2018.

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.

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.

Public Speaker

Francis Morland spoke on the appeals report

The Planning Appeals Update Report for 15/06/2018 and 13/07/2018 was received.

Resolved:

To note the Planning Appeals Update Report for 15/06/2018 and 13/07/2018.

To consider and determine the following planning applications.

With the agreement of the Chairman, and before the planning applications which required committee determination had been presented, Kenny Green, as Development Management Team Leader, informed the committee that the new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) had been published the previous day (i.e. 24 July) and that it took immediate effect. The committee was informed that the published committee reports and recommendations (as set out below) had been re-appraised and that the published recommendations remain unchanged.  The committee was furthermore informed that following the individual case officer’s verbal and visual presentations for each application and agenda item, Mr Green would provide members with a detailed outline of the NPPF changes. The committee was informed that every published paragraph reference to the now redacted NPPF had been superseded. Members were also informed that some of the material changes comprised a ‘lift and shift’ revision with the paragraph numbering being changed with the policy direction and emphasis remaining the same.   Where there was a material revision to the policy direction, the committee was informed immediately after the case officer has completed their presentation.

The Committee considered the following applications:

Public Participation

Andrew Rushton spoke in objection to the application

Adrian Bailey spoke in objection to the application

Mark Reynolds spoke in objection to the application

Ian Mellor spoke in support of the application

Paul Greatwood spoke in support of the application

Matt Williams spoke in support of the application

Steve Sims, as Senior Planning Officer, introduced the report which recommended that outline planning permission be granted subject to a s106 legal agreement for up to 28 dwellings on land to the east of Damask Way with all matters reserved except for the vehicular means of access (with a new access being proposed off Upper Marsh Road).

A site visit had been undertaken by Committee Members on the 23 July in accordance with the deferment resolution made at the previous meeting on 25 June 2018. The officer’s report and presentation reflected upon the committee site visit and clarified that the application site comprised approximately 0.7ha of agricultural grade 3a land with the remainder of the 2.23ha site being 3b land. The officer informed the committee that the published report set out with the aid of an overlay map (produced by officers) the location and extent of the site graded as 3a and 3b land.  The committee was also informed that the published report responded to the other deferment reason through providing more detail pursuant to the 2007 refused application nearby at No.2 Henford Close.

It was noted that seven late representations had been received in objection to the application however they did not raise new or additional matters that was not set out within the published report. It was however clarified that the reference made within the report to a residential address referred to as number 5 was actually number 75. The no. 5 reference was understood to be a plot number.

Key issues included; the principle of development, the impact on the character and appearance of the area, the impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents, highway issues, ecology issues, the impact on heritage assets (in this case a nearby listed building), drainage issues and necessary planning obligations.

Following the officer presentation, Kenny Green, referenced the following changes to the NPPF and the implications relevant to the application:

·         Paragraphs 14, 186 and 187 which previously set out the need for LPAs to approach decision making in a positive way and look for solutions and approve applications in sustainable locations and satisfy economic, social and environment sustainable development objectives had been retained but renumbered and set out essentially within paragraphs 11 and 38.  Under paragraph 38, LPAs were still encouraged to approach decision making in a positive and creative manner.

·         Paragraphs 39-46 of the new NPPF set out the policy support in terms of encouraging pre-application and officer/developer negotiations in pursuit of delivering the best possible development outcomes; which had been followed in this particular case.

·         In direct reference to the emerging Wiltshire Housing Sites Allocation Plan it was noted that: Paragraph 216 of the 2012 version of the NPPF  ...  view the full minutes text for item 42.

There was a 10 minute break and the meeting resumed at 17:30.

Public Participation

Lesley Magnus spoke in objection to the application.

Andrew Mead spoke in objection to the application.

Verity Giles-Franklin, as planning officer, introduced the report which recommended that approval be granted for the regularisation of an area of hardstanding and formation of access as well as the change of use of agricultural land to equestrian use and proposed erection of a timber loose box / stable building.

A site visit had been undertaken by committee members ahead of the meeting in accordance with the deferment resolution made at the previous meeting on 25 June 2018. Officers referenced additional reported details contained within the published reports in their presentation.

The committee was also informed about an email from a local resident that had been sent to members on 24 July expressing concerns about the size and impact of the proposed development.  The committee was informed that the email did not raise any new information or representation that was not already addressed within report.

The key issues were identified as; the principle of development, the impact on the green belt and special landscape area as well as the impacts on neighbouring amenity, flood risk and highway safety.

Following the officer presentation, Kenny Green, outlined the relevant NPPF changes and the implications for this application which comprised:

•           The Impact on the Green Belt Appraisal: The committee was informed that the referenced NPPF paragraphs 87-89 within the published report had now been replaced by paragraphs 143-147.  However the same policy direction was in place pursuant to what comprised inappropriate development in the green belt and the exceptions set out within paragraph 145.

•           Paragraphs 133 and 134 of the new Framework set out the Green Belt objectives and para 133 and 145 set out the importance attached to preserving the openness of the green belt.

•           Highways interests: The committee was again advised on the policy direction set out within paragraph 109 of the new Framework in relation to highway interests and safety.

•           The committee was advised that the officers had re-appraised the application against the revised framework and that the published recommendation remained unchanged.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. Details were sought on: the purpose of the stables, whether any planning permission has been secured for the changes that had taken place on the site and about the increase of traffic.

Officers in response advised the committee that the stables were being proposed for personal horse use and that no permission had been sought previously for the unauthorised area of hardstanding or for the siting of the caravan and field shelters. Members were informed that with the exception of the area of hardstanding, no permission was required for the siting of the tourer caravan and the field shelters after they had been the subject of an enforcement investigation, they were considered to be chattels and exempt from requiring  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43.

Public Participation

Lisa Otterbarry spoke in objection to the application.

Diana Lindsey spoke in objection to the application.

Nigel Honer spoke in objection to the application.

Ann Ross spoke in support of the application.

Ewan Earle spoke in support of the application.

Don McGillivray spoke in support of the application.

Cllr John Bishop, Chairman Westwood Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application.

James Taylor, as Senior Planning Officer, introduced the report which recommended that approval be granted for a replacement dwelling.

The key considerations were identified as; the principle of the replacement dwelling, the impact on the green belt, the impact on the special landscape character of the AONB, the impact on the landscaping and trees subject to preservation orders, design and heritage, the impact on nature conservation and ecology interests, the impact on neighbouring amenity, the impact on highway safety, the provision of adequate water supplies and sewerage and surface water disposal.

Following the officer presentation, Kenny Green, informed the committee of the relevant changes made to the NPPF and the relevant implications pursuant to this application:

•           The committee was informed that the new NPPF under paragraph 8 set out the direction given to LPAs to support growth and design innovation, as well as identifying the need to provide a range of house types that were well designed and fit for purpose.

•           Paragraph 127 of the new Framework advised that decisions should not discourage appropriate innovation and innovative design detailing if there was no substantial harm.

•           In terms of the Green Belt, paragraphs 143-147 were pertinent with paragraph 145 being particularly relevant in terms of setting out the exception allowances set out within the NPPF for new ‘materially larger’ replacement buildings.

•           The committee was informed that paragraphs 133 and 134 set out the Green Belt objectives, and paragraph 145 in particular referenced the need to preserve the openness of the green belt.

•           The committee was informed that the NPPF did not define what ‘materially larger’ meant and neither did the saved H20 policy taken form the former West Wiltshire District Plan 1st Alteration.  The committee was advised that in the absence of any interpretation of its meaning, the task fell to the decision maker to  make a planning judgement on whether a proposed replacement building constituted as being ‘materially larger’ on a case by case basis.  Mr Green furthermore observed that the literal direction made by the government was not about preventing a larger replacement dwelling in principle, instead the policy direction required a judgement to be made on whether the replacement building is ‘materially’ larger; and that this required assessments to be done based on the comparable differences in terms of heights, footprint and volumes between the existing building and the proposed replacement building.

•           In terms of the AONB: the committee was informed that paragraphs 170 and 172 were now relevant in terms of setting out the Framework safeguards.

•           With respect to the natural landscape, the nearby ancient woodland and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 44.

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

The Members agreed that it would be useful for officers to provide a report on clarifying and defining what constituted as ‘materially larger’ in the context of paragraph 145 of the NPPF; and separately, the committee sought a member’s briefing note on the new NPPF to be circulated as soon as possible.