If you are reading this page using a screenreader, we support ARIA landmarks for quick navigation too

Agenda and minutes

Venue: Council Chamber - County Hall, Bythesea Road, Trowbridge, BA14 8JN. View directions

Contact: Libby Beale  (Senior Democratic Services Officer)

Items
No. Item

64.

Apologies for Absence

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Graham Payne and Cllr Trevor Carbin who was substituted by Cllr Gordon King.

65.

Minutes of the Previous Meeting

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 29 June 2016

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

It was noted that the minutes of the meeting held on 18 May remained outstanding.

 

Resolved:

 

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 29 June 2016 and request that the minutes of the meeting held on 18 May 2016 be presented at the next available meeting.

 

 

 

66.

Chairman's Announcements

To receive any announcements through the Chair.

Minutes:

There were no Chairman’s Announcements.

 

67.

Declarations of Interest

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

Minutes:

Cllr Jonathon Seed advised that he was a holiday park owner however did not consider this to be an interest to preclude him from the debate and vote on item 6a - 16/00587/FUL- land at Brokerswood Country Park and he would participate with an open mind.

68.

Public Participation and Councillors' Questions

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 in person no later than 2.50pm on the day of the meeting.

 

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. The rules on public participation in respect of planning applications are detailed in the Council’s Planning Code of Good Practice.

 

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 (acting on behalf of the Corporate Director) no later than 5pm on Wednesday 3 August 2016. 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.

 

Members of the public are also reminded that, whilst they 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 before the meeting, any last minute lobbying of members is not permitted once the debate has started, including the circulation of new information, written or photographic which have not been verified by our planning officers.

Minutes:

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

 

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

 

Following a request from the local member, the Committee agreed to bring forward determination of agenda item 6c- application 16/03456/FUL – The Bungalow, Pepperacre.

 

69.

Planning Applications

To consider and determine the following planning applications:

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered the following applications:

 

70.

16/03456/FUL - The Bungalow, Pepperacre Lane, Trowbridge, BA14 7JQ

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the application for the conversion of an existing dwelling into two dwellings and the erection of one further dwelling, two detached garages, associated landscaping and access works. The application was recommended for approval, subject to the conditions outlined in the report. The officer presented the existing and proposed site plan, the proposed elevations of the dwellings and photographs of the site on Pepperacre Lane. A summary was provided of the recommended planning conditions which covered: materials, ecology, timescales, parking, landscaping, energy performance and plans.

 

As there were no technical questions the Chairman invited members of the public to speak.

 

Mark Sutton and Norbert Crossley spoke in objection to the application.

 

Chris Beaver (the applicant’s agent) spoke in support of the application.

 

The local member, Cllr Steve Oldrieve, spoke in objection to the application. The councillor had no objection to the principle of the development however had concerns about overlooking, access arrangements, and the impact of the development on the character and tranquillity of the area.

 

Following questions from members about the Elmhurst development to the south west of the site, the Senior Planning officer advised that the access roads would probably be adopted by the Council due to the number of properties and this proposed development on the bungalow site would also accord with the character of the neighbouring development. Questions were raised over the potential for the proposed development to overlook the neighbouring development and officers reassured the Committee that there was sufficient distance between dwellings and that habitable rooms were not directly overlooked due to the direction of the windows.

 

Cllr Christopher Newbury, seconded by Cllr Ridout, moved the officer recommendation.

 

In the debate that followed members considered the density of the proposed development and understood that the footprint of the existing bungalow would not be changed. The Committee noted that there had been no objection from ecologists and there was to be further landscaping on the site.

 

Resolved:

 

To grant planning permission, subject to the following conditions and informatives:

 

1.    The developmenthereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

 

REASON: To complywith the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planningand Compulsory Purchase Act2004.

 

2.    No development shallcommence on siteuntil details of the materials to be used forthe external walls and roofs have been submittedto and approved in writing by theLocal Planning Authority.Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

 

REASON:The matteris requiredto beagreed withthe LocalPlanning Authority before development commences in order that the development is undertaken in anacceptable manner, in the interests of visualamenity and the character andappearance of the area.

 

3.    Thedevelopment hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the Badger MitigationStrategy and the Bat Mitigation and EnhancementStrategy, both prepared by Stark Ecology as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 70.

71.

16/00587/FUL- Brokerswood Country Park, Brokerswood Road, Southwick, BA13 4EH

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the application for a change of use to locate 90 holiday lodges, 10 touring units and 10 camping pods together with associated infrastructure and Liquid Petroleum Gas storage area (in place of 89 touring unit pitches). The application was recommended for approval, subject to the conditions and informatives outlined in the report. A history of the site was given, including previous planning permissions and details of land ownership. It was explained that the key policy relevant to the proposal was Core Policy 39 (Tourism Development) of the Wiltshire Core Strategy. The officer advised that the application was an extension of the existing site and stated that the paddock area had existing planning permission for pitches. Statutory declarations regarding the use and non-use of this paddock had been received from the agent and residents.

 

The officer drew attention to the late observations and noted that a site visit, attended by Committee members, had taken place earlier that day to allow members to familiarise themselves with the site. The proposed layout of the lodges, units and camping pods was provided, alongside details of existing structures to be removed and plans of the existing entrance and exits which were to be used for access. The Senior Planning Officer acknowledged that 1.7% of the woodland would be lost to the development however there would be no damage to the ancient trees and it was considered that the application, which included a woodland management plan, would be of significant benefit to the woodland.

 

Members were advised that the site would be open to visitors using the lodges, caravan and camping pods all year round, however traffic to the site was expected to reduce in comparison with current usage due to the site being closed to day visitors; as such no objections had been raised by Highways officers. It was noted that local residents had undertaken a traffic survey however this was not considered to be reliable and could not be taken into consideration due to a lack of information regarding when, how and where the survey had been undertaken, it had also not been submitted to the Local Planning Authority. Photographs of the site were shown and the officer summarised that the application was not considered to have an adverse impact on the neighbouring amenity and would see enhanced ecology, employment opportunity, rural tourism and a positive impact on highways.

 

In response to technical questions, it was stated that in the locality there was a farm shop, nearby pubs and nearby towns and villages that could benefit from the development attracting tourists to the locality.

 

Tracey Peachment, Simon Langdon and Nigel Godsiff spoke in objection to the application.

 

Neil Benson, James Whiteford and Jeremy Lambe (the applicant’s agent) spoke in support of the application.

 

Cllr Marion Masters, Southwick Parish Council, and Cllr Alison Irving, Dilton Marsh Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application.

 

The local member, Cllr Horace Prickett, spoke in objection to the application on the grounds that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 71.

72.

15/11604/OUT - Westbury and District Hospital, The Butts, Westbury, BA13 3EL

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

The meeting adjourned at 17:10 for five minutes.

 

The Chairman permitted Michael Sutton to speak in objection to the application, prior to the planning officer’s presentation.

 

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the outline planning application wither all detailed matters reserved for a later stage, except for the means of access to serve up to 58 dwellings. Members were informed that the submission was supported by several plans which illustratively identified landscape treatment, provisions of public open space, housing and internal road layout on the site of the former Westbury and District Hospital. It was recommended that the Committee delegate authority to the Head of Development Management to grant outline planning permission, subject to the completion of a s106 agreement within 6 months (taken from the date of the committee resolution) to cover the developer obligations as summarised within section 9.14 of the report and planning conditions and informatives as listed in the report, and to consider the late observations (contained in the agenda supplement) made by the Council’s archaeologist.

 

The Senior Planning Officer presented a parameter plan and illustrative landscape plan, explaining that the number of houses and density of development had materially reduced since the pre-application and initial application stages. An indicative layout showed where affordable housing could be located within the development, which factored in the vacant building credit implications alongside the provision for public open space. A series of extensive photographs of the site, and perspectives from nearby locations were shown and referenced.

 

The Committee was advised there was no photograph taken from Orchard Road in the officer’s presentation. There were no other technical questions.

 

Erica Watson and Michael Pearce spoke in objection to the application.

 

Chris Beaver (the applicant’s agent) and David Tout spoke in support of the application.

 

Cllr Ian Cunningham, Westbury Town Council, spoke in objection to the application.

 

The Chairman said he felt he should point out that he lived in Leighton Green, Westbury, not far from the site, and that in taking part in the debate and the vote he came to the matter with an open mind.

 

The local member, Cllr Gordon King, spoke in objection to the application since he considered there to be insufficient infrastructure in the town to support a further increase in population. The councillor considered there was sufficient housing supply already in Westbury, with substantial housing numbers and applications having been approved recently. The councillor also raised concerns in respect of drainage, highways, unsustainable development, limited affordable housing and conflict with Core Policy 43.

 

Cllr Gordon King, seconded by Cllr Magnus MacDonald, moved that the application be deferred to a future meeting to allow for a member’s site visit.

 

In the debate that followed it was suggested that members could assess the potential highways concerns raised by the local member at a site visit. Members also commented this would allow more time for officers to supplyfurther information on the highways impact of the developmentand its effect on school places.

 

Resolved:

 

To defer determination until  ...  view the full minutes text for item 72.

73.

Appeals Report

To received details of appeals decisions and appeals pending.

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

Members considered an update on planning appeals, forthcoming hearings and public enquiries.

 

A member of the public, Francis Morland, questioned why planning decisions APP/Y3940/W/15/3129040 in Calne, APP/Y3940/W/14/2223354 in Cricklade and APP/Y3940/W/15/3130433 in Westbury were not included in the appeals report.

 

The Area Team Leader acknowledged Mr Morland’s observations and explained that the decisions relating to Calne and Cricklade did not relate to the area covered by the Western Area Planning Committee and the appeals report would be presented to the Northern Area Planning Committee. The officer apologised for any other overlooked and missing decisions that had not been included in the update and advised he would liaise with the appeals administration team to correct matters and that the next appeals report would seek to address any anomalies.

 

The Area Team Leader explained in detail several key issues raised as part of two recently determined appeals including the dismissed appeal relating to an application the committee refused contrary to officer recommendation in December 2015 for a 4 house residential development at Station Approach, St Margaret’s Street in Bradford on Avon.  Members were informed that although the Inspector sided with the committee in turning down consent for the development, he found the reason to refuse the development on highway grounds unreasonable; and a partial award of costs was sanctioned.  The Area Team Leader explained to members that no costed application had been received form the appellant to date, however, the officer asked members to consider the necessity of applying NPPF paragraph 32 whenever the committee is minded to refuse an application on highway grounds; and of the need to have evidence to substantiate any highway refusal.  Without such evidence, Members were reminded that there could be a consequential costs being awarded against the local planning authority if it is found to have acted unreasonably.

 

The officer also provided members with an outline of what the inspector concluded in allowing an appeal at 48 High Street, Heytesbury and an explanation was given to members on the reasoning behind the withdrawal of the appeal at Land west of Drynham Lane, Trowbridge.

 

 

Members expressed particular interest in an update on an decision in respect of land at Trowbridge Rd, Westbury and councillors also requested an update on the latest land figures for the county as they considered this relevant to the determination of planning applications.

 

 

Resolved:

 

To note the update.

 

To request that updates missed from the appeal report at this meeting be included in an expanded and corrected appeals report at the next Committee meeting.

 

To request an update on the appeal decision relating to the appeal at Trowbridge Road, Westbury, be provided at the next meeting.

 

To endorse a request to the Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning, Development Management, Strategic Housing, Property and Waste, for an updated statement on housing land supply to be made available to members and published online.

74.

Urgent Items

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

 

Minutes:

The Committee considered potential dates of the site visit in respect of the Westbury Hospital application, and provisionally agreed upon 2pm on 28 September 2016, to be confirmed at a later date. 

 

Actions

Search

This website