Browse

Agenda and minutes

Venue: Council Chamber – County Hall, Bythesea Road, Trowbridge, BA14 8JN

Contact: Ellen Ghey  Democratic Services Officer

Items
No. Item

10.

Apologies

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Minutes:

There were no apologies for absence from any Committee Members but apologies from Cllr Tony Jackson, a Substitute Member of the Committee, were noted.

 

11.

Minutes of the Previous Meeting

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on  19 January 2022.

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

The minutes of the previous meeting of the Western Area Planning Committee held on 19 January 2022 were considered. Following which, it was:

 

Resolved

 

The Committee approved the minutes of the previous meeting of the Western Area Planning Committee held on 19 January 2022 as a true and correct record.

 

 

12.

Declarations of Interest

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

Minutes:

Cllr Ernie Clark declared a pecuniary interest in Agenda Item 7b by virtue of his property neighbouring the application site boundaries, and as such, he would leave the meeting as a member of the Committee during the Agenda Item.

 

Cllr Edward Kirk declared a non-pecuniary interest in Agenda Items 7b and 7c and stated that he would not participate in the debate or vote for either Agenda Items.

 

Cllr Antonio Piazza declared that he had been lobbied with regard to Agenda Item 7b.

13.

Chairman's Announcements

To receive any announcements through the Chair.

Minutes:

The Chairman made those in attendance aware of the Covid regulations that were in place for the meeting and asked that all phones were switched off or turned to silent mode to minimise any potential disturbances.

 

14.

Public Participation

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 14 February 2022.

 

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 attend the 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 9 February 2022 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 11 February 2022.

 

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.

Minutes:

The Chairman explained the rules of public participation and the procedure to be followed at the meeting.

 

No questions had been received from Councillors or members of the public.

 

15.

Planning Appeals and Updates

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

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

The Chairman invited Kenny Green, Development Management Team Leader, to update the Committee on any completed and pending appeals as per the appeals report included within the Agenda Pack.

 

It was confirmed that one appeal decision had been received for Application

19/08146/VAR, Land at Trowbridge Lodge Park, an appeal that related to six additional residential caravans being sited within the park.

 

It was explained that the appealed development had been refused by a substantive lack of detail submitted by the applicant and that three refusal reasons were cited within the refusal decision dated 8 April 2020. The decision outlined the lack of a tree constraints plan, tree survey and aboricultural impact assessment; all of which were considered essential to enable the Council to full assess the potential impact of the proposed additional six residential caravans on existing trees, the natural landscape and the ecological value, and potential impacts on protected species. In addition, the Council refused the full planning application as it was only supported by an indicative site plan that was not found to be acceptable by officers as it was not possible to fully assess the potential impacts that the six additional caravans would have on the living conditions of existing and future occupants in terms of outlook, privacy and visual amenity. There was also a lack of detail submitted in terms of parking provision.

 

An appeal was subsequently lodged by the applicant, but it was help up substantively by the COVID pandemic and the planning inspectorate did not issue an appeal start letter until 25 August 2021. Officers defended the appeal and maintained that insufficient information had been provided on the sitting of the additional caravans and the appellant had failed to demonstrate that the increased capacity would be implemented in such a way as to avoid further loss or damage to trees (natural habitat) and/or adversely impact on residential amenity. Through the appeal process, officers recommended that the appointed planning inspector seek Natural England’s advice on the effect of the development proposed on the bats, particularly those associated with the Bath and Bradford-on-Avon Bats Special Area of Conservation (SAC), and to secure a detailed site masterplan. Natural England provided the planning inspector with comments in early January 2022 and a detailed site plan submission was sent to the planning inspector which was then sent to the Council to provide comments.

 

The appeal was allowed with the appointed planning inspector being suitably informed by the late submission of the detailed site plan and imposed conditions to define the terms of the allowed appeal. Members were advised that applicants are expected to submit applications that are fully supported with plans and relevant supporting documents to illustrate what is proposed, and when they do not, that they should expect a refusal. It should be noted that the applicant had been asked numerous times to submit a detailed plan by the case officer whilst the application was with the Council, but they had refused to comply.

 

Members were advised by  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15.

16.

Planning Applications

To consider and determine the following planning applications.

Minutes:

The Committee considered the following applications:

 

17.

PL/2021/08361 - 72 High Street, Heytesbury, Warminster

Change of use of existing annex to a standalone residential dwelling (Use Class C3).

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

Steven Sims, Senior Planning Officer, presented the report and highlighted that an additional late representation had been received with regard to parking enforcement, however it was noted that this letter raised nothing new and that the relevant matter was covered within the report.

 

It was noted that the application had been deferred from the previous meeting of the Committee pending additional information alongside a site visit which occurred on the morning of the meeting, 16 February 2022. The Case Officer clarified that the main property had three bedrooms, not four, which had been previously reported at the January Committee meeting, and that there was one bedroom within the annex. It was highlighted that an additional condition (no.4), as referenced on Page 27 of the Agenda Pack had been added and was recommended by officers following further discussions held with the Council’s Highways Officer.

 

Key issues highlighted included: the principle of development; impact on heritage assets; impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents; highways/parking issues; and drainage issues.

 

Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions to the officer. The main points of focus included: the recommended condition to retain the integral garage within the subject building for garaging/storage purposes and not allow it to be converted to habitable accommodation; the appropriateness of removing the additional Class A permitted development rights; and the enforceability of conditions.

 

In response, Planning Officers clarified that an additional planning condition removing Class A permitted development rights to ensure the property maintained adequate car parking provision would be reasonable given the site circumstances. When asked about condition breaches, it was explained that there was always a risk of conditions being breaches, however if reported, breaches would be investigated by the Planning Enforcement Team, but it was explained that planning enforcement was a discretionary service and taking formal enforcement action must first be in the public interest.

 

Thereafter, Councillor Bill Parks, Vice-Chairman, moved the officer recommendation as detailed in the report with the addition of a condition to remove Class A permitted development rights.

 

During the debate Members discussed the benefits and clarity that the site visit had provided.

 

At the conclusion of the debate, a vote was taken on the motion for approval. Following which, it was:

 

Resolved

 

The Committee APPROVED the application as per the officer’s recommendations 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:
Site location and block plan scale 1:1250 and 1:500
Plans and elevations scale 1:100 drg no. 219003/02c

 

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

 

3.    The parking spaces shown on the approved plans (Site Block Plan) shall be maintained for parking  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.

18.

PL/2021/03253 - Lion and Fiddle, Trowbridge Road, Hilperton, Trowbridge, BA14 7QQ

Erection of two detached dwellings, garages and associated works.

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

Public Participation

 

Mr Gordon O’Brien, neighbouring resident, spoke in objection to the application.

 

Mr Ernie Clark, neighbouring resident, spoke in objection to the application.

 

Ms Joy Singer, applicant, spoke in support of the application.

 

Verity Giles-Franklin, Senior Planning Officer, introduced the report which recommended the issuing of planning permission to be delegated and deferred to the Head of Development Management granted, following the sealing of a s106 legal agreement, for the erection of two detached dwellings, garages and associated works.

 

Reference was made to the Committee Member site visit that had been scheduled on the morning of the meeting, 16 February 2022. The Case Officer referenced the presentation slides, and the application proposal was set out in detail, including drawing Members’ attention to the fact that part of the site was within the defined settlement limits (and one of the proposed dwellings), whilst the other part and about two thirds of the other dwelling would be outside the limits.

 

The Case Officer explained the proposed site layout plans and the vehicular access point that would be gained through the existing public house car park. It was also highlighted that one plum tree adjacent to the HILP30 public right of way footpath would be removed but that officers had no objections to such work. Members were also advised that a parcel of land owned by the applicant (and kept separate from the two proposed dwellings/plots) would be safeguarded and dedicated for biodiversity betterment to support ecology interest and to be secured by a s106 legal agreement. Members were further advised that the development would require obligations to secure the requisite contribution as set out by the Trowbridge Bat Mitigation Strategy as well as CIL.

 

The Committee was informed that third party/Parish Council concerns had been raised regarding the overdevelopment of the site, however officers explained that the proposed two dwellings would have adequate amenity/garden space and the separation distances to neighbouring properties was considered acceptable.

 

No objections had been raised by the Council’s Aboricultural, Ecology, Highways or Rights of Way officers and it was noted that the site was surrounded by existing residential development.

 

Key issues highlighted included: the principle of development; impacts on the character of the area and designated heritage assets; impacts on neighbouring amenities for both future and existing occupiers; ecology interests; and highway safety. 

                                                               

Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions to the officer. The main points of focus included: the safeguarded coppice/grassland area to the rear of the site; the Trowbridge Bat Mitigation Strategy; and details of the s106 legal agreement.

 

In response, the officer confirmed that the securing of the s106 legal agreement and biodiversity enhancement plan would ensure the protection to the grassland parcel and would deliver biodiversity betterment.

 

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

 

Mr Ernie Clark departed the meeting as both a member of the public and a Member of the Committee.

 

Cllr Edward  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18.

19.

PL/2021/05520 - Unit 8, Atworth Business Park, Bath Road, Wiltshire, BA12 0AN

Change of use to light industrial (Class E), variation of condition 10 and 12 attached to permission 19/06790/FUL, extension and alteration to existing building, landscaping and associated works.

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

Public Participation

 

A statement in objection of the application was received from Mr Mike Fayers neighbouring resident, prior to the meeting, and was read out by a Democratic Services Officer.

 

Ms Becky Stevens, applicant, spoke in support of the application.

 

David Cox, Senior Planning Officer, presented the report which recommended that the Committee delegates and defers authority to the Head of Development Management to secure a s106 deed of variation legal agreement to bind the subject property and site to the proposed revisions and to update the agreement to reflect the proposed change of use to light industrial (Class E), and to secure the appropriate signatures of the landowners to complete the landscaped bund within 3 months of the completion of the rear western lean-to-extension, and thereafter to grant planning permission subject to conditions, for a change of use to light industrial (Class E), variation of condition 10 and 12 attached to permission 19/06790/FUL, extension and alteration to existing building, landscaping and associated works.

 

Reference was made to the presentation slides (Agenda Supplement 1) and the planning history of the site, which included a dismissed appeal. It was confirmed that numerous site visits had been undertaken by planning and public protection officers which had been useful to gain an appreciation of how the subject property operated and used electric forklifts when transporting bulk material from the front of the site. The presence of the internal buffer shutter doors was explained, which in addition to the electric forklifts being relatively quiet and the completed landscaped bund, would ensure that the operations within the subject property would not be harmful to nearby residences. 

 

Key issues highlighted included: principle of development; impact on neighbouring amenity; the legal agreement requirements; and use of planning conditions.

 

Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions to the officer. The main points of focus included: the completion and ownership of the bund; the drainage strategy; the potential conditioning of the use of the buffer shutter doors; and noise concerns.

 

In response, the officer clarified that the bund was owned by the freeholders of the business park and not the applicants. However, officers had obtained a written undertaking that the respective owners would sign up to a s106 modification to secure the bund completion within three months of the rear extension being completed and to update the agreement to reflect the proposed change of use. In response to a query raised about the drainage strategy, it was confirmed by officers that the Council’s drainage authority had raised no comments to the extant permission which allowed the extension to be built and that this application proposal did not necessitate a drainage strategy on its own. Officers explained that a condition that would require the opening of one door and the closing of the plant doors would be difficult to enforce, however it was highlighted that the application had been through a lengthy consultation with the Public Protection Team who had raised no objection to the proposed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.

20.

Urgent Items

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

 

Minutes:

There were no urgent items.