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 20 November 2019.

The minutes of the previous meeting were presented.

Resolved:

To approve as a correct record and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 20 November 2019.

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

Cllr Ernie Clark declared a pecuniary interest as he was the applicant regarding Application No. 19/07428/LBC: Timbrell Street, Trowbridge (Minute No 79b below refers).  He would address the meeting as a member of the public and then withdraw from the meeting.

Cllr Edward Kirk declared a non-pecuniary interest as he was a personal friend of Cllr Ernie Clark.  He would not take part in the debate regarding Application No. 19/07428/LBC and withdraw from the meeting during consideration of this application.

To receive any announcements through the Chair.

The Chairman made the following announcements:

·                     He welcomed Cllr Suzanne Wickham on her first attendance as a member of this Committee and hoped that she would find the work interesting and rewarding.

·         He also announced the recent passing of former Cllr Roy While and paid tribute to the excellent and valuable contribution Cllr While had made to the work of both this Council and the former West Wiltshire District Council.  Other members of this Committee echoed these sentiments with several additional tributes being made after which, members and officers stood for a minute’s silent tribute. 

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 10 December 2019 to receive a verbal response questions must be submitted no later than 5pm on12 December 2019. 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.

An update on planning appeals and decisions for the period 8 November to 6 December 2019 was received.

Resolved:

To note the contents of the update.

To consider and determine the following planning applications.

Public Participation

Mr John Polhill, a local resident, who spoke in opposition to the application.

Ms Karen Skeates, a local resident, who spoke in opposition to the application.

Mr Michael Fayers, a local resident, who spoke in opposition to the application.

Ms Claire Durbin, the agent, who spoke in support of the application.

The Committee received a presentation from David Cox, as Case Officer who set out the main issues in respect of the application. Having assessed the merits of the proposed development and tested it against the policies of the Development Plan and other material considerations, members were advised of the recommendation to defer and delegate an approval subject to planning conditions and following variations being made to a Section 106 Agreement to specifically delete clause 2a, to vary clause 2b (to become clause 2a) and to vary the appended s106 site plan to accurately define the business park boundary (and to correct various typographical errors).

The Case Officer referred to an earlier application regarding Unit 8 at this site for an extension to the existing building (Use Class B8), an extension to the service road, landscaping and associated works.  This earlier application was refused and the subsequent appeal was dismissed by the Planning Inspector.  A copy of the appeal decision was attached to the report currently before members.

Members then had the opportunity to ask technical questions after which they heard statements from members of the public as detailed above.

Members then heard the written views of Cllr Phil Alford, the local Member, which were read out by Cllr Jonathon Seed.  The committee heard that Cllr Alford had concern regarding the impact the proposed development would have on the surrounding area, with adjacent dwellings, the environment and considered that the proposal would contravene the policy provisions set out within CP34. Cllr Alford also argued that there was considerable public interest in this application due to the previous refusal and dismissed appeal. Cllr Alford also considered that it was appropriate to have the application determined by committee members after hearing from members of the public and to reach an open and fair decision.

During discussion, Cllr Jonathon Seed stated that, he had sympathy with the views of those members of the public who lived in close proximity to the site and had raised objections to the proposal. However, on balance he felt that taking into account the decision of the Planning Inspector regarding the previous application on the same site, it would not be possible to defend a decision to refuse permission and on his proposal which was seconded by Cllr Peter Fuller,

Resolved:

Through taking into account all the material planning considerations outlinedin thereport, todelegate anddefer authority to the Head of Development Management to grant planning permission subject to the planning conditions and informatives listed below  and also the following variations required to the 1994 legal agreement being completed:-

1.    Clause 2a be deleted from the agreement as it has never been  ...  view the full minutes text for item 79a

The Committee received a presentation from Russell Brown, as Case Officer, Case Officer who set out the main issues in respect of the application. The purpose of the report was to assess the merits of the proposal against the policies of the Development Plan, national guidance and other material considerations and to consider the recommendation that the application be refused.

Members then had the opportunity to ask technical questions after which they heard a statement from Cllr Ernie Clark, the applicant who thereupon left the meeting. Cllr Edward Kirk also left the Chamber.

Members then heard the views of Cllr Stuart Palmen, who spoke on behalf of Cllr Edward Kirk, the local Member. He drew attention to the views of the Trowbridge Town Council who objected to the application on the grounds that windows in PVC would be unsuitable in a listed building and that only hardwood would be acceptable. It was noted that following publicity no third-party comments had been received.

Cllr Stuart Palmen proposed that the application be refused on the grounds that the replacement windows should be more suitable for a listed building. Officers explained that the application was not supported with detailed plans, despite officer requests; and in considering this omission, a motion to defer making a decision was put forward to allow officers to engage with the applicant to secure the necessary plans.  Before going to a vote, an amendment was put forward by Cllr Seed (which was seconded by Cllr Suzanne Wickham) requesting that the committee should also take a vote on asking officers to suspend enforcement proceedings for all the other properties in the terrace that are known to have unauthorised uPVC windows. Kenny Green, as Area Team Leader advised against issuing such an instruction and argued that the facts of the other properties were not known to the committee or indeed to officers present at the meeting. It was not known whether the unauthorised windows involved a loss of historic fabric and members were advised that the other properties in the terrace should continue to be subject that their own investigations.  On being put to the vote, the Motion (with the amendment) was lost.

During the following discussion, several Members expressed the view that the windows that needed being replaced were not original and that sash and case uPVC replacement windows or even aluminium windows may be acceptable for this particular property.  Members heard again form officers that the application lacked detailed plans and argued that members should consider deferring the application if they wanted officers to engage with the applicant again to secure detailed plans.

Thereafter, Cllr Stuart Palmen proposed that the application should be deferred for further information, including detailed plans which was seconded by Cllr Suzanne Wickham.

The Motion was put to the vote and it was

Resolved:

To defer consideration of the application pending receipt detailed plans.

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