Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies for absence were received from:

Cllr Andrew Dais who was substituted by Cllr Roy While.

Cllr Philip Alford who was substituted by Cllr David Halik.

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 17 October 2018. (Copy attached)

The minutes of the meeting held on 17 October 2018 were presented.

Resolved:

To approve as a correct record and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 17 October 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 Wednesday 7 November 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 9 November 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 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 5/10/2018 and 2/11/2018 was received.

Resolved:

To note the Planning Appeals Update Report for 5/10/2018 to 2/11/2018.

A report by the Case Officer is attached.

Public Participation

Chris Baines spoke in objection to the application

Matt Pugh spoke in objection to the application

George Mumford spoke in objection to the application

Chris Beaver, Agent, spoke in support of the application.

John Bishop, Chair of Westwood Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application

Mathew Perks, Senior Planning Officer, introduced the report which recommended approval be granted for the provision of two self-contained camping pods with parking, change of use of land to leisure / tourism. This was a resubmission of 17/02852/FUL.

Key issues included; the principle of development, Landscape: Green Belt, Cotswolds AONB and Conservation Area,Impact on neighbour amenity; and Highways.

Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. Details were sought on: whether the application proposal could be considered to be an exception as recreation related development, as defined by para 145 b) of the NPPF; and questioned the extent of the site, the proposed length and construction of the proposed access road to service the pods and the landscape impacts of the development.

The Officer, in response to the questions advised that; the development provided recreational facilities for visitors and tourists, and that the proposed new road access would be a removable framework known as grasscrete which would allow grass to grow the substrate and make the access road appear less conspicuous.  It was accepted that the development site would allow for some long range visibility from public vantages gained across the valley at Turleigh and Winsley; and, the site would be open to views from the immediate neighbouring property positioned 50m away from where the proposed pods would be sited.

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

In response to points raised during the public forum, the officer made reference to the points included in the report with regard to the assessment on impacts pursuant to: neighbours, nuisance, highways, landscape and visual impacts.  It was also reported that whilst the pods would have a degree of permanence by virtue of being bolted in place, they would be low key structures measuring a few metres in height and would have limited impact.

The local member, Councillor Johnny Kidney, spoke in objection to the development noting that there had been a large number of objections raised by local residents and noted that the site was located within a highly protected landscape and close to the conservation area and was not secluded but open to views from across the valley and a neighbouring property – which would all be negatively impacted on so much so that the proposed development would conflict with the NPPF Greenbelt Policy, CP39, CP51, CP57 and CP58; and, there would be highway/access issues.

A motion was moved to hold a site visit by Councillor Jonathon Seed, which was seconded by Councillor Pip Ridout.

At the end of the debate it was;

Resolved   

To defer making a decision until after a member site visit which was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 69.

A report by the Case Officer is attached.

Public Participation

Martin Haffenden spoke in objection to the application

Dr Sawson Williams, Applicant, spoke in support of the application.

David Cox, Senior Planning Officer, introduced the report which recommended approval be granted, subject to conditions, for the erection of 4 dwellings. This was a resubmission of 17/04649/FUL.

Members were advised on the content of a late representation which had been received prior to the meeting; which in addition to setting out the neighbours’ concerns, the submission included a request to consider restricting the construction hours on the site by way of a planning condition.

The key issues were identified as; the principle of development and appraising the appeal decision (which was appended to the committee report), to appraise the amenity/living standards of future occupants, and the impacts on neighbouring amenity, as well as consider highway safety and parking and the overall impacts on the street scene,

Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. Details were sought on the specification and effectiveness of the proposed solar tubes which were proposed for the middle properties.

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

The local member, Councillor Roy While, spoke on the application noting that the Parish Council had objected to the development and it was acknowledged that the previous application had been refused by officers, which was appealed and although dismissed, the planning inspector concluded that the development would not be out of keeping with the evolving character of the area (fully mindful of the recently approved 150 house development on land to the rear and other residential development approved along Semington Road), and it would not be inappropriate development if the amount of private amenity could be enhanced.  As reported by officers and included within the officers report, it was accepted that the applicant had made material revisions to reduce the height and floor plan of the proposed terrace and to increase the size of the rear gardens and that officers now recommended approval of the application.  It was also accepted that the inspector’s conclusions on certain aspects of the proposal influenced the officer recommendation for this particular case.

A motion, to approve planning permission with a condition added to restrict construction hours, was moved by Councillor Jonathon Seed and was seconded by Councillor David Halik.  

A debate followed where the following points were raised: issues about the terrace design including its roof and proposed parking provision.

.

At the end of the debate it was;

Resolved

To approve planning permission subject to the following conditions:

A report by the Case Officer is attached.

Public Participation

John Palmer spoke in objection to the application

James Greenwell, Applicant, spoke in support of the application.

Bob Mizen, spoke on behalf of Holt Parish Council, in objection to the application

Kenny Green, Development Management Team Leader, introduced the report which recommended approval be granted for the demolition of a conservatory and proposed rear extensions and alterations to the front boundary treatments.

Members were informed that a late representation had been received, which had been circulated to committee members prior to the meeting, however the officer read out the concerns expressed by the concerned neighbour. The concerns comprised reference to overdevelopment, overbearing and loss of privacy impacts and loss of light to the neighbouring property and garden located to the east. The officer advised members that the unscaled sketched extension to the property in the form of an amended photograph could not be verified as being accurate, although the scaled plan measurements were clearly reported to the committee.

The committee was advised that Holt Parish Council, as part of their submitted objection, referenced Policy H18 which remains as being saved from the West Wiltshire District Plan, within in their representation, however, the committee members were advised that the Policy was not relevant to the development proposal since it related to ancillary domestic development and not new housing development.  Members were also advised that the impacts of the development would be acceptable in planning terms and the development would not detrimentally affect the protected part of the village.

.

Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. Details were sought on: the height of the railings and the light impacts on the neighbouring property.

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

Local Member, Councillor Trevor Carbin, spoke on the application noting: the detrimental impact on the area of minimum change, overshadowing, detrimental impact on neighbours amenity, the change in character of the property and dynamic of the community, making reference to saved West Wiltshire District Plan – 1^st Alteration policy H18, and adopted Wiltshire Core Strategy Core Policy 57 and Core Policy 58.

A motion to refuse the application was moved by Councillor Trevor Carbin and seconded by Councillor Ernie Clark.

A debate followed where the following points were made: that the railings would change the character of the property and be out of keeping in an area that is protected, that the development proposal conflicted with the neighbourhood plan and that the extensions would have a detrimental impact on neighbouring interests and would be in conflict with adopted and saved plan policy.

Before a vote was taken, the presenting planning officer provided his professional interpretation of saved policy H18 and advised the committee that the whilst saved Policy sets out a presumption against the construction of new housing development within the protected area of minimum change, it did not extend to other development that is not new housing development. In addition, the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 71.

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

There were no Urgent Items.