Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Suzanne Wickham, who arranged for Councillor Tony Jackson to attend as a substitute.

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 7 July 2021.

The minutes of the meeting held on 7 July 2021 were presented for consideration, and it was,

Resolved:

To approve and sign as a true and correct record of the minutes of the meeting held on 7 July 2021.

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.

The Chairman made those in attendance aware of the Covid regulations that were in place for the meeting.

Statements

Members of the public who wish to submit a statement in relation to an item on this agenda should submit this in writing to the officer named on this agenda no later than 5pm on Monday 27 September.

Submitted statements should:

·       State whom the statement is from (including if representing another person or organisation);

·       State clearly whether the statement is in objection to or support of the application;

·       Be readable aloud in approximately three minutes (for members of the public and statutory consultees) and in four minutes (for parish council representatives – 1 per parish council).

Up to three objectors and three supporters are normally allowed for each item on the agenda, plus statutory consultees and parish councils.

Those submitting statements would be expected to join the online meeting to read the statement themselves, or to provide a representative to read the statement on their behalf.

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 electronically to the officer named on the front of this agenda no later than 5pm on Wednesday 22 September 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 24 September 2021.

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 members prior to the meeting and made available at the meeting and on the Council’s website. Questions and answers will normally be taken as read at the meeting.

No questions had been received from councillors of 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 update report on planning appeals was received with details provided that a number of appeals had been received and determined. Development Management Team Leader, Kenny Green provided a summary of three allowed appeals in Semington, Bradford On Avon and Southwick.

Resolved:

To note the Planning Appeals Update Report for 29 September 2021.

To consider and determine the following rights of way applications:

The Committee considered the following Rights of Way application:

To consider objections and representations received following the making and advertisement of “The Wiltshire Council Trowbridge Path no.8 Definitive Map and Statement Modification Order 2021”.

Public Participation

Steve Wylie spoke in objection of the application.

Andrew May was unable to attend the meeting, therefore Democratic Services Officer Ben Fielding read out a statement that had been provided prior to the meeting in support of the application.

Senior Definitive Map Officer, Janice Green presented a report which had the purpose to consider objections and representations received following the making and advertisement of “The Wiltshire Council Trowbridge Path no.8 Definitive Map and Statement Modification Order 2021”. The report recommended that “The Wiltshire Council Trowbridge Path no.8.Definitive Map and Statement Modification Order 2021” be forwarded to the Secretary of State for determination, with a recommendation from Wiltshire Council that the Order be confirmed without modification.

Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions regarding the application. Details were clarified, including that the fence within the portion of land subject to the Order would require removal if it was found to be an obstruction of the highway, however this would depend on the findings of the Secretary of State regarding the width of the path and its status . It was explained that the current barrier was erected under the Highway Authority’s powers to erect barriers in the highway to safeguard users, under Section 66 of the Highways Act 1980 and there is evidence that the opening of Church Lane as a through route to vehicular traffic has long been a concern. The Highway Authority’s duty to safeguard users of the path continues if the path is upgraded to a bridleway, but of course any barrier would need to be appropriate for a bridleway at the full width. The current barrier would be removed and replaced with an appropriate barrier at the same time in order to protect non-motorised users. As this would be an operational decision, it would be made by the Head of Service for Highways or the Rights of Way team

Additionally, it was clarified that the Order proposes to  upgrade the footpath to a bridleway, rather than a byway open to all traffic and that the legal public use for this would only be on  horseback, with bicycles and foot. Details were sought regarding the private rights of residents to use Church Lane in order to access their properties and it was explained by officers that private rights had not been investigated as there was no duty to do so.  Any person  driving down Church Lane would be doing so to access the properties along Church Lane, not to  use the highway as a through route.  The barriers in place do not allow motor vehicles to connect from Church Lane to Acorn Meadow.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their views to the Committee as detailed above.

The local Unitary Member, Councillor David Vigar, then spoke regarding the application. Key points included concerns from residents that the barrier might be removed and then not replaced, causing Church Lane to be a through road which would be dangerous for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 47.

To consider and determine the following planning applications:

The Committee considered the following Planning Applications:

Erection of two holiday eco lodges.

Public Participation

Richard Cosker spoke in support of the application.

Rachel Clow spoke in support of the application.

Mr and Mrs C.N. Stevens were unable to attend the meeting, therefore Democratic Services Officer Ben Fielding read out a statement that had been provided prior to the meeting in support of the application.

Roger Evans spoke on behalf of North Bradley Parish Council.

Senior Planning Officer, Verity Giles-Franklin, presented the report and recommended that the Committee refuse the application for the erection of two holiday eco lodges.

The committee was advised about the site circumstances being located in the open countryside beyond any defined settlement and not close to any such settlement. The officer advised members about the principle of development and change of the use of the land to a tourist use, as well as the consequential visual and ecology impacts, the impacts to neighbouring amenity and highway matters.

Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions regarding the application. Clarification was provided on the lawful use of the land being residential curtilage following the approved conversion of the former public house to a residential property in 2015. The committee was also advised on the lead development plan policies and queries were answered pursuant to the adopted policy regarding infill and directing new tourist development to settlements or close to settlements as set out by Core Policy 39 and the overarching Council’s policy of securing sustainable development. It was also confirmed that the application had no direct association to Brokerswood Country Park.

Additionally, the sustainability principles of the application were discussed in relation to the proposal generating additional traffic, with officers advising members that by virtue of the site’s rural location, the two holiday lets would likely have a heavy reliance placed upon the use of private motor vehicles to gain access to local attractions, which would conflict with Core Policies 60 and 61, to reduce reliance on cars. Clarity was furthermore sought with respect to Core Policy 39 stipulating that new holiday let development in the open countryside should first of one by evidenced that the proposed facilities are in conjunction with a particular countryside attraction, the reasoning being to provide new development in exceptional cases where there is demand and a clear association to an existing use that requires new holiday let accommodation.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their views to the Committee as detailed above.

The local Unitary Member, Councillor Horace Prickett then spoke regarding the application. Key points included that the design of the proposed holiday lets would be out of character with other buildings in the area and that the development would have no local services available and would be isolated in the open countryside and would generate more traffic.

A debate then followed which considered the principle of the development along with the associated impacts the proposed development would have to the open countryside, the aesthetics of the proposal was also discussed with the use of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 49.

Erection of replacement dwelling.

Public Participation

Lisa Baird spoke in objection of the application.

Jenny Potts spoke in objection of the application.

Simon Chambers spoke in support of the application.

Joy Spiers spoke on behalf of Monkton Farleigh Parish Council.

Senior Conservation and Planning Officer, Steven Sims, presented the report and recommended that the Committee approve the application for the erection of a replacement dwelling subject to conditions.

Details were provided of the site including the principle of development, the impact on the openness of the Green Belt and to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and the AONB, as well as the impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents.

Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions regarding the application. Clarification was provided by officers that, if approved, three car parking spaces would be required – which the proposed plans included.  It was also confirmed, that as recommended, if the application was to be approved, certain permitted development rights should be removed by a planning condition.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their views to the Committee as detailed above.

The local Unitary Member, Councillor Johnny Kidney then spoke regarding the application. Key points included that the property was located in a sensitive village within a green belt as well as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and that the proposed size of the replacement building would contravene the national planning policy framework. Councillor Kidney furthermore argued that the proposal would have a detriment impact on neighbouring properties.

A debate then followed whereby members discussed the merits and impacts of the proposed replacement dwelling and it was argued that despite officers securing negotiated changes that reduced the size and bulk of the replacement dwelling, the finalised proposal was still considered too large and harmful to neighbouring interests. The NPPF was referenced, specifically that a property should not be materially larger than the one being replaced. The sensitivities of the site were acknowledged and referenced, along with there being a recognition that the Council currently has a 5-year housing land supply deficit.  However, it was also argued that the NPPF presumption in favour of supporting new housing when such a deficit exists, is not engaged for this particular case given the site’s special protections.

A motion to refuse the proposal was moved by Councillor Trevor Carbin and was seconded by Councillor Antonio Piazza. The cited reasons for refusal were that the proposed replacement dwelling, by virtue of its materially larger size and height (when compared to the existing property) and the proposed re-siting, would constitute an inappropriate and harmful form of development in the green belt contrary to para 149 d) of the Framework, and moreover, it would have an unacceptable impact on the amenities of the neighbouring properties, especially No.37B, contrary to adopted WCS Core Policy 57.

At the conclusion of the debate, it was,

Resolved:

That planning permission be refused for the following reason:

The proposed replacement dwelling, by virtue of its  ...  view the full minutes text for item 50.

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