Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Darren Henry.

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 24 July 2019.

The minutes of the meeting held on 24 July 2019 were presented.

Resolved:

To approve as a correct record and sign the minutes.

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 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.

The Committee noted the rules on public participation.

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

The Committee noted the contents of the appeals update.

To consider and determine the following planning applications.

The Committee considered the following applications:

Public participation

Megan Campbell, the applicant, spoke in support to the application.

Lucy Hagg, local resident, spoke in support to the application.

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

The Planning Officer, Steven Sims, introduced the report which recommended the refusal of planning permission for the proposed demolition of an existing domestic garden outbuilding and erect a single dwelling with a detached garage (re-submission of refused application 18/10459/FUL).

Key issues highlighted included: the principle of development with a detailed explanation of the adopted WCS policy on residential infill for small villages; the impact on the character of the area and AONB; the impact on the living conditions of neighbouring residents; the impact on the character of adjacent listed building; parking/highways issues; flood risk constraints and self-build issues.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions

of the officer which focused on: the usage of the existing outbuilding; whether the development of the site would satisfy the Council’s infill policy; discussing the lack of a defined settlement boundary for Longbridge Deverill (being identified as a small village only without limits of development); officers were also ask whether the existing domestic outbuilding could be converted under class Q; and questioned on the proposed height and use of the proposed detached garage. Officers were also asked about the pending appeal that related to refused application 18/10459/FUL, and what conditions may be appropriate should the committee be minded to grant permission.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to address the Committee, as

detailed above.

Cllr Fleur de Rhé-Philipe, the Division Member, spoke in favour of the application and argued that the development forms a clear part of the garden linked to the host property and that the site is not open countryside; and that the application proposal should be supported as an infill development opportunity for the village adding that it would not cause harm to the character of surrounding area or neighbouring properties.  The local ward member also argued that the application should be tested on its own merits and that no precedent would be set by allowing the application.

At the start of the debate Cllr Pip Ridout put forward a motion to approve the application (subject to conditions), which was seconded by Cllr Stewart Palmen contrary to the officer recommendation with conditions to be imposed relating to commencement, approved plans, on site drainage; landscaping; ecology; parking; light spillage limitation measures and external lighting.

During further member debate, officers advised on: the pending appeal decision for APP/Y3940/W/19/3227029; the differences between the present application and the refused 18/10459/FUL submission; the lack of a settlement boundary for Longbridge Deverill, and the need to make an informed planning judgement on whether the site would be a policy compliant and acceptable infill site for an additional dwelling.  The level of public support for the application was duly noted along with the fact that the highways authority reported no objection in terms of access and highway safety.

Following  ...  view the full minutes text for item 41.

Public participation

Simon Hill, the agent, spoke in support of the application.

Lisa Palmley, the agent, spoke in support of the application.

John Pollard, Chairman of Edington Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application.

The Planning Officer, Verity Giles-Franklin, introduced the report which recommended the granting of planning permission, subject to conditions, for the replacement of a two-story dwelling following the demolition of an existing dormer bungalow.

Key issues highlighted included: the principle of development; the impact of the development on the character of the area and special landscape area; impacts on neighbouring amenity, archaeology, public rights of way and highway safety.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions

of the officer which focused on the proposed re-siting of the dwelling and its distance from the public footpath and boundaries.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to address the Committee, as

detailed above.

Cllr Richard Gamble, spoke against the application and invited members to consider the policy safeguards set by the adopted Wiltshire Core Strategy and the impacts the proposed development would have on the character of the area by virtue of the scale of development and the bulk and height of the proposed new dwelling.

Planning officers responded to the concerns raised by the Parish Council and Cllr Gamble and explained the appropriate policy tests Policy H20 and the planning conclusions which were set out within the report alongside discussing the expressed local concerns relative to parking/highway safety; neighbouring impacts and ecological issues as well the permitted development fall-back provisions that exist for the existing house.

Following on from the above, Cllr Jonathon Seed put forward the motion to approve the application, subject to conditions as recommended by officers which was seconded by Cllr Edward Kirk for the reasons as set out in the report.

Resolved

That planning permission be approved 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:

Drawing Nos: 0182 PL01, Location Plan and Site Plans; 0182 PL02, Existing Floor Plans; 0182 PL03, Existing Elevations; 0182 PL04, Proposed Floor Plans; 0182 PL05, Proposed North-West and South-West Elevations; 0182 PL06, Proposed South-East and North-East Elevations; 0182 PL07, Existing and Proposed Views Elevations; 0182 PL08, Landscaping Plan; as received on 27 June 2019.

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

3.    No development shall commence on site pursuant to any below ground works until a written programme of archaeological investigation to include on-site work and off-site analysis, publishing and archiving of all the results and finds, has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority; and that the approved programme of archaeological work  ...  view the full minutes text for item 42.

Public participation

Richard Burbidge, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

The Planning Officer, David Cox, introduced the report which recommended that the application be refused planning permission for the proposed erection of a two-bedroom cottage on the footprint of a former cottage which was demolished 35 years ago.

Key issues highlighted included the principle of development with a detailed explanation of the adopted WCS policy on residential infill for small villages, an explanation was also given to the lack of any in principle fall-back once a dwellinghouse has been demolished (with case law and appeal references given) as well as highlighting highway safety concerns and the lack of an appropriate assessment pursuant to bats and the SAC.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions

of the officer which focused on: the objection raised by the Highways Authority; the ownership of footpath (WASH20); the boundary of the property and the possible implications if the Ashton Park urban extension development proceeds.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to address the Committee, as

detailed above.

Cllr Horace Prickett, the Division Member, spoke in support of the application and focused on the supportive comments made by both West Ashton Parish Council and North Bradley Parish Council and argued that the development should be supported and that highway concerns would not be severe to warrant a refusal; and moreover, the endorsed urban extension at Ashton Park would include once implemented, the introduction of relief road for the A350 and would reduce traffic volumes.

Officers addressed the issues raised by the ward member and the applicant and maintained the argument that officers do not consider the site to be policy compliant as a residential infill opportunity; and moreover, argued that the highway concerns and the lack of an appropriate assessment for bats (being a lawful requirement before any grant of planning permission) would be substantive grounds to refuse the application.

Following on from the above, Cllr Edward Kirk, seconded by Cllr Sarah Gibson put forward a motion to defer the application for more information regarding the Trowbridge Bat Mitigation Strategy’s requirements and complete an appropriate assessment for bats, and to instruct officers to secure additional/corrected plans from the applicant pursuant to land ownership and potential provision of visibility splays and that members should arrange to visit the site before the application is reported back to the committee.

During a further debate members discussed whether the site would be a policy compliant infill opportunity and the merits of members having a committee site visit.

Resolved

To defer this application and to instruct officers to secure additional information pertaining to highway matters specifically confirming the extent of the applicant’s landholding and provisions to improve visibility, to advance with the completion of an appropriate assessment for the SAC and for a member site visit to be scheduled when the application is to be brought back to committee.

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.