Agenda item

Works to existing road to provide new road link connecting B4069 Langley Road and Parsonage Way, including the provision of a footway/cycleway and new landscaping. Construction of new double roundabout junction on Langley Road and single roundabout on Parsonage Way. Stopping up of existing section of Parsonage.

Public Participation

Ian Jewson (Agent) provided a statement in support of the application.

Lee Burman, Development Management Team Leader presented a report which recommended that permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in the original report to Committee and completion of a S106 Planning Obligation which had subsequently been agreed in draft form. With the dual recommendation that if the applicant failed to complete the planning obligation in the draft form as now agreed and within 3 months of the resolution, or an extended timeframe to be agreed with the Committee Chair and Vice chair if necessary, that the application be refused. (This was updated in agenda supplement 2 from the original officer recommendation to refuse the application.)

The proposal was for works to the existing road network to provide a new road link connecting B4069 Langley Road and Parsonage Way, including the provision of a footway/cycleway and new landscaping. Construction of new double roundabout junction on Langley Road and single roundabout on Parsonage Way. Stopping up of existing section of Parsonage Way.

The scheme sought to reorder the existing road layout in the locality and make use of the previously permitted and constructed internal haul road at the Wavin site as part of the local public road network. Two new road junctions at the western and eastern ends of the haul road/existing Parsonage Way were required to facilitate this, as were some minor improvements to the haul road as constructed. This would allow the existing Parsonage Way to be stopped up and it’s use changed to outdoor storage thereby creating a single, undivided site for Wavin facilitating improved site management and operation.

At the meeting of the Strategic Planning Committee on 15 August 2018 the committee resolved to approve this application subject to the signing of a Section 106 agreement, or to refuse the application in the event that the agreement was not completed, this was in accordance with the officer recommendation. The committee report and minutes from that meeting were contained in the agenda pack.

Several disputes had arisen since the resolution on 15 August 2018 and material considerations had arisen which meant that the wording to the refusal reason previously reported and agreed needed to be updated.

However, since publication of the agenda report talks with the applicant and their representatives had continued and the matters of dispute had been satisfactorily resolved. Therefore, the officer had changed the recommendation from refusal (as detailed in the agenda) to granting permission with conditions and completion of the S106 planning obligation based on the wording now agreed between the parties (as detailed in agenda supplement 2).

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

In response to public statements the officer stated that the Council had clarified that the agreement did not seek to override any disputed land interests and that it was purely about physical delivery of the scheme. A position had been reached where both parties were satisfied.

The Chairman then proposed a motion that the officer’s recommendation to grant permission subject to conditions and completion of the s106 planning obligation as detailed in agenda supplement 2 be adopted. This was seconded by Cllr Newbury.

A debate followed where comments included that the work of applicants, agents, solicitors and officers was acknowledged. Some members were pleased that a solution had been found resulting in the amended officer recommendation to grant permission.

 At the conclusion of the debate each Member was asked in turn to confirm that they had been able to hear and where possible see all relevant materials and to indicate their vote.

When each Member had voted, the Democratic Services Officer announced the decision as follows:

Resolved:

To delegate authority to the Head of Development Management to grant permission subject to conditions listed in the original report to Committee dated 15/08/2018; and the completion within three months of the date of the Committee resolution of the s106 agreement / planning obligation to secure Highways provisions as agreed and engrossed as a final document as at 25/08/2020. To delegate authority to the Head of Development Management in consultation with the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Committee to agree an extended timeframe to secure signing and completion of the agreement if that proves necessary due to land interests, COVID 19 or other factors beyond the control of the Council and applicant.

In the event that the applicant fails to enter into the agreement as engrossed within this timeframe, or an extended timeframe if agreed as necessary in consultation with the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Committee, refuse permission for the following reason:-

The proposed development without the required planning obligation fails to deliver the necessary highways works and enhancements required to secure a safe and appropriate development and the specific requirement of the Council’s Strategic Planning Committee resolution not to prejudice delivery of the permitted Rawlings Green Rail bridge and thereby conflicts with Wiltshire Core Strategy (Jan 2015) CP3 CP34(ix) CP57 (ix) CP60 CP61 CP62; Chippenham Sites Allocation Plan (May 2017) CH2; and paragraphs 11 and 108 (b) 109 110 of the National Planning Policy Framework (July 2019) .