Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Antonio Piazza and Cllr Pip Ridout. Cllr Ridout was replaced for this meeting by Cllr Mike Sankey.

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 6 July 2022.

The minutes of the meeting held on 6 July 2022 were presented.

Resolved:

To approve as a correct record and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 6 July 2022.

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

Cllr Sankey informed the Committee that he had been lobbied in relation to PL/2022/01141 – Kingsdown Farm, Lords Hill, Longbridge Deverill and confirmed that he would listen to all the evidence, comments and detail contained in the report before making a decision. The Chairman indicated that all other Committee members had also been lobbied in relation to this application.

To receive any announcements through the Chair.

The Chairman asked that all phones were switched off or turned to silent mode to minimise any potential disturbances and explained the procedure if a fire alarm were to sound.

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 no later than 10 minutes before the start of the meeting. If it is on the day of the meeting registration should be done in person.

The rules on public participation in respect of planning applications are linked to 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 21 September 2002 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 23 September 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 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 24 June 2022 to 16 September 2022 was received.

The Development Management Area Team Leader commented on three applications that went to appeal for Land East of the Poplars Residential Park, Poplar Tree Lane, Southwick, Trowbridge. He explained that the three applications were refused under delegated powers principally citing concerns about highway safety and additional traffic generation associated with the proposed additional gypsy and traveller plots being accessed via a sub-standard access and restricted junction with the A361 in terms of forward visibility for oncoming traffic heading north-east from Rode direction. At appeal, the inspector did not consider the highway concerns to be sufficient to warrant dismissing the appeals, and allowed all three, subject to conditions. The Development Management Area Team Leader reminded the Committee that applications being refused required robust evidence and pointed out that two of the three appeal decisions were subject to a partial award of costs against the Council in terms of citing a drainage reason for refusal, which the appointed inspector argued could have been adequately addressed by planning condition.

Officers also responded to queries in relation to the dismissed appeal for an agricultural worker dwelling at Meadow View Farm, Bradford Leigh.        

Resolved:

To note the Planning Appeals Update Report for 24 June 2022 to 16 September 2022.

To consider and determine the following planning applications:

Variation of condition 3 (timescale for deposit of waste materials) on 17/09988/VAR

Public Participation:

·       Sarah Lovell – spoke in objection to the application

·       Caroline Hobbs – spoke in objection to the application

·       Wilfred Mole – spoke in objection to the application

·       Kate Phillips – Applicant – spoke in support of the application

·       Jonathan Seed – spoke in support of the application

·       Matt Williams – Agent – spoke in support of the application

·       Richard Burden – Cranborne Chase AoNB – spoke in objection to the application

·       Cllr James Kettler, Longbridge Deverill Parish Council – spoke in objection to the application

Steven Sims, Senior Conservation/Planning Officer introduced the report which recommended that planning permission be approved, for reasons detailed in the report, for the variation of condition 3 (pursuant to the timescale for the deposit of waste materials) imposed on 17/09988/VAR.

The officer advised that the key issues for consideration included, the principle of development, the impact on the character and appearance of the ANOB and available views from public vantages/footpaths, the impact on living conditions of neighbouring residents, as well as highway and ecology issues.

The Committee noted that planning permission was originally granted for agricultural buildings and the re-profiling of land for these buildings dated back to 2010 lodged under application reference W/10/02377/FUL and the deposit of waste and all earthworks were conditioned to be completed within 3 years. However, this was not long enough.

Application 17/03155/VAR approved a 5-year extension to the time allowed to re-profile the site, and even with the extension, the applicants have not completed the land re-profiling.

The current layout of the site and building design was approved under revised application reference 17/09988/VAR, which established the principle of development for the erection of livestock buildings, dung store, access track and continued re-profiling of the land – which was originally established by the granting of application W/10/02377/FUL, and members were advised that this variation application does not propose to deviate away from the previously consented re-profiled land levels or erect different buildings, but additional time is required to complete the works as set out within the submission.

The case officer explained that the application solely seeks the Council’s consideration of varying a planning condition to allow the applicant’s a longer period to re-profile the land, to provide a level platform for buildings that have consent but have not been constructed along with delivering the landscape planting to provide a landscape buffer and filter views of the development site.

Members were advised that officers consider the variation application to be acceptable and would not materially harm the amenities of local residents or result in any additional harm to the character of the AoNB, although it was accepted that the delayed landscape planting was a concern.

The officer explained that planning conditions relating to the number of vehicles allowed to enter the site and the delivery times would be re-imposed. Members were advised that there were no highway safety issues with the access or egress and no objections were raised by the Council’s highway officer. The visual impacts of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 67.

Replacement and raising of roof and associated vertical extension to create bedrooms on the first floor and replacement garage (resubmission of PL/2021/09030) and retrospective permission for a garden room single storey infill addition to rear.

Public Participation:

·       Cole Bowden – spoke in objection to the application

·       David Rose – spoke in objection to the application

·       Peter Bevan – spoke in objection to the application

·       Ian Lucas – spoke in support of the application

·       Alvin Howard – Agent – spoke in support of the application

·       Kate Hayes - Longbridge Deverill Parish Council – spoke in objection to the application

Kenny Green, Development Management Area Team Leader introduced the report which recommended that planning permission be approved, for the replacement and raising of roof and associated vertical extension to create bedrooms on the first floor and replacement garage (resubmission of PL/2021/09030) and retrospective permission for a garden room single storey infill addition to the rear).

The officer advised that the key issues for consideration included, the principle of development, as well as impact on visual amenity, heritage assets, neighbour amenity and highway/parking effects.

The Committee was advised that the property had been subject to a number of planning applications, which included an extant approved application that allowed the raising of the roof to create an upper floor level as well as extend to the side and rear.

The Committee were advised that the current proposal was a materially different design to the extant approved scheme and would also provide upper floor accommodation, but officers argued it would be complied with relevant polices of the adopted Wiltshire Core Strategy, the made Neighbourhood Plan, the Village Design Statement for Hilperton and the NPPF, and accordingly was recommended for approval subject to conditions.

The report summarised the responses to the statutory and the public consultations, and the Committee was informed that 15 comments of objection had been received from the public consultation, and that the parish council also objected.

There were no technical questions asked by the Committee.

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

The unitary division member, Cllr Ernie Clark spoke in relation to a number of concerns he had regarding the application. These included the scale of the development, the visual impact on the surrounding area, the relationship to adjoining properties, the design - bulk, height, and general appearance, the environmental or highway impacts, and car parking. Cllr Clark felt that the application seemed to be at odds with previous permissions given on the site, and asked if there was a limit to the number of applications for one site.

In response to issues raised during public participation and the Unitary Member statement, the planning officer explained that when comparing the original dwelling, the extant approved scheme and what was now proposed, the proposal in front of the committee would account for approximately an extra 2% footprint on total site and was not considered as overdevelopment. Compared to the extant approved upper floor addition, planning officers felt that the current application was an improvement in design terms and would be more in keeping with its current surroundings, and with the recommended use of obscure glazed windows to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 68.

Redevelopment of former day care centre (Class F.1) comprising: the erection of 48 No. dwellings and associated access and landscaping works)

Public Participation:

·       Claire Durbin – Agent – spoke in support of the application

Gen Collins, Senior Conservation/Planning Officer introduced the report which recommended that planning permission be approved, for reasons detailed in the report, for the Redevelopment of former day care centre (Class F.1) comprising the erection of 48 No. dwellings and associated access and landscaping works).

The officer advised that the key issues for consideration included, the principle of development, impact on Heritage Matters design/visual appearance, housing, landscape and public open space, ecology, education, impact on the residential amenity, highways/parking issues, drainage and S106/CIL.

The Committee noted that the development proposes the reuse of brownfield land for housing within a principal settlement. The provision of 48 dwellings carries significant weight given that the Council cannot as yet demonstrate a robust five year land supply. Of the 48 units, 14 will be affordable housing and this also carries significant weight given that there is a need for affordable housing in this location. It would also provide (i) an improvement to the location visually in terms of improved landscaping and demonstrate an efficient and effective use of land; (ii) contributions to education facilities and provide construction jobs as well as inviting 48 new households who would spend money locally and likely contribute to the local employment pool.

The officer reported that the introduction of a swale and provisions of a landscape and ecological management plan that would improve drainage at the site and ensure the longevity of the biodiversity and may well enhance the biodiversity. The provision of additional cars may impact parking availability in the area, however the scheme has sought to increase on-site parking as much as possible and there are no highway objection or concerns in terms of highway safety. Additional contributions in the form of a Green Travel Plan, works to improve the existing bus stops at the site, a new footpath and contributions to Traffic Regulation Orders in the locality are also considered benefits.

Accordingly on balance, the numerous benefits in favour of the scheme outweigh any harm identified and as such in accordance with paragraph 11 of the NPPF 2021 the proposed development benefits from a presumption in favour of it and it is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to conditions

In response to technical questions asked by the Committee, the officer explained that a request had been received from Trowbridge Town Council to transfer open spaces for management by the Town Council. This would be for officers to finalise with the Town Council outside of any S106 agreement; meetings between housing officers and the design team have taken place in relation differing views about the design of the affordable housing element -the Chairman asked for Housing Officers to be invited to future Planning Committees where there is a difference of opinion between officers; EV car charging points and air source heat pumps were part of the development.    

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their  ...  view the full minutes text for item 69.

Construction and operation of a 7.5mw gas peaking generation plant, to include an electrical substation, gas kiosk, gas engines, access, CCTV, lighting and associated works (Resubmission of 20/10440/FUL)

Public Participation:

·       Alan Siviter – Planning Agent – spoke in support of the application

David Cox, Senior Planning Officer introduced the report which recommended that planning permission be approved, subject to conditions and informatives,   as detailed in the report, for the construction and operation of a 7.5mw gas peaking generation plant, to include an electrical substation, gas kiosk, gas engines, access, CCTV, lighting and associated works (Resubmission of 20/10440/FUL considered by the Committee on 9 March 2022). The Committee also welcomed Brett Warren – Senior Environmental Health Officer who commented on air quality issues.

The officer advised that the key issues for the Committee to consider included the Principle of Development, supporting energy supply and impact on climate change/carbon neutrality, environmental impacts (especially air quality), neighbouring impacts, highway impacts, impact upon the setting of a local heritage asset, flood risk and ecology impacts.

The officer referred to a legal opinion from Christopher Boyle QC, which was published on the Council’s website in Supplement 1. The officer also acknowledged that the burning of gas to fuel this proposed power plant facility would increase the level of air pollution relatively close to an area that has recorded exceedances of the national objective for nitrogen dioxide (NO2). However, following lengthy negotiations with the applicant and their appointed consultants, and direct engagement with colleagues within the Council’s Public Protection team, planning officers are satisfied with a combination of planning conditions and a planning obligation to secure a developer contribution, mitigation measures would substantively reduce the environmental effects pursuant to noise and air pollution – to enable the application to be compliant with the adopted Wiltshire Core Strategy Core Policies 55 and 57 and with the National Policy Statement for England and the National Planning Policy Framework.

In addition, officers also fully acknowledge that whilst there is a long-term ambition to reduce reliance on fossil fuels and reach a position of carbon neutrality by 2050, the use of fossil fuels in the energy mix remains an essential and viable option to meet peak electricity demand. The use of fossil fuel for power generation is supported by the Government and recent appeals evidence that gas-fired power generation facilities form part of the energy supply mix. They are not obsolete, and in this particular case, the proposal is not considered contrary to national or local planning policy, and consequently, officers recommend that members endorse the recommendation to approve the application subject to conditions and informatives.

In response to technical questions asked by the Committee, along with Cllr Matthew Dean, local member, the officer indicated that it was not known whether a local air management quality area existed for a similar application in East Devon that was granted on appeal by the appointed planning inspector; the blend of 20% hydrogen into the natural gas distribution networks was not appropriate for this application; the calculation for a required financial contribution should read 0.026 / 1.2; the Council’s Carbon Team had been consulted on the application and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 70.

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