Agenda and minutes

The Chair reminded Councillors to declare any known interests in any of the matters to be considered by the Committee. No such declarations were made.

To receive the minutes of the meetings held on 27^th November and 11^th December 2018.

Resolved – That the minutes of the meetings held on 27^th November and 11^th December 2018, be confirmed and signed.

There were no public questions

In respect of application numbered S/18/1033/TB (Erection of 18no. dwellings with associated access, parking and landscaping – Land at Langton Park, Wroughton, Swindon), the Committee considered: -

          Name                                 Address/Organisation

          Chris Frost                          Agent

          Councillor Cathy Martyn       Ward Councillor    

          John Vincent                       Local Resident

          Hannah Donsonjh                Wroughton Parish Council

Councillors Toby Elliott, Fionuala Foley, Nick Martin, Stan Pajak and Vera Tomlinson spoke in respect of this application.

Submissions in support of the application can be broadly summarised as:

·       The previous application had been deferred to allow it be review in the light of the Committee’s concerns in respect of the number of 1 bedroom units and accessibility issues and concerns regarding car ownership.

·       The developer had not revised the application despite guidance from the Committee that it would wish to see a reduction in the number of 1 bed units and that the developer was against the loss of these units.

·       A survey showing the higher than average level of car ownership in Wroughton based upon data from the last Census.

·       That there was no evidence that car ownership could be linked to the size of dwellings at the site.

·       That whilst Comet Way was a private road there was no restriction to cars and buses using it and discussions were on-going with the owner to permit construction traffic to use it.

·       The developer’s preference would be for Comet Way to become an adopted highway or as an alternative to secure a right of way over this road for both existing and new residents.

·       The development would help address the housing shortfall within the Borough 18 new homes and would provide affordable which complemented the Council’s Vision on sustainable development which complied with the Council’s planning policies.

·       Following the deferment of the application discussions had taken place with Council Officers.  The development comprised 4 x 1bedroom units, 4 x 2 bedroom unit and 10 x 3 bedroom units of which all the 1 bedroom and 1 of the 2 bedroom units had been identified as affordable housing.  Stonewater the Social housing provider who specialised in rural and market town social housing identified 1 bedroom units as those most needed in Wroughton.

·       Any reduction of smaller units could not be supported as this represented the greatest need in the area.

·       The allocation policy for social units would see an offer of accommodation made but this didn’t have to be accepted if the units or public transport was a concern.  Stonewater worked hard to support its tenants and ensure the units are appropriate for prospective occupiers.

·       The developer was confident that the mix of properties was correct for the site.

·       The development had been designed following consultation with the Council’s officers and following its design guidance and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 53.

In respect of application numbered S/17/1771/TSAMS (Erection of class A1 foodstore and associated access, parking and landscaping - Land North Of Blackworth Industrial Estate, Highworth, Swindon), the Committee considered: -

          Name                                 Address/Organisation

          Simon Glover                      Agent

          Councillor Steve Weisinger   Ward Councillor

          Pauline Webster                  Highworth Town Council

          Steve Hall                           Local Resident

Councillors Alan Bishop, John Ballman, Steph Exell, Fionuala Foley, Nick Martin, Jane Milner-Barry, Stan Pajak, Vera Tomlinson and Peter Watts spoke in respect of this application.

Submissions in support of the application can be broadly summarised as:

·       The application could assist with the development of the remainder of the site for employment uses in accordance with the Local Plan allocation.

·       A petition containing 972 signatures in support of the application signed by local residents which supported the need for additional food retail option within the town.

·       The application is supported by Highworth Town Council.

·       The application would provide approximately local jobs in retail.

·       The application would give residents a local choice for shopping, the only current supermarket in Highworth being the Co-operative store in the high street.

·       It was estimate that nearly half of residents in Highworth left the town to do their weekly shop due to the lack of retail options and a survey showed 9% of local residents visited the Adli store on Hobey Drive, Swindon.

·       Retailers in the high street, including the butchers and newsagent, did not believe that they would lose trade should the application be granted and many such as public houses and gift shops would not be affected.

·       Given its size Highworth was one of the very few residential areas that were not served by more than one major retailer.

·       The Co-op has set up stores in close proximity and direct competition with other supermarkets within the Borough and surrounding area.

·       That the application would create 40 jobs in compliance with Policy RA1and facilitate the development of the remainder of the site.

·       That the application only covered 14% of the development site.

·       That retaining local residents shopping at the store there was likely to be a positive effect on the high street as fewer people left the town to their shopping rather than their money being spent elsewhere.

·       Adli stores did not have a butcher, fishmonger or sell tobacco and so encourage link trips to other stores in the area and would accept a Planning condition preventing this in the future.

·       Retaining a higher proportion of residents shopping locally would have the environmental benefit of reducing car journeys.

·       Regarding biodiversity the site was already allocated for development which would have as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 54.

In respect of application numbered S/18/0545/JH (Demolition of car park and storage buildings and erection of 14no. dwellings (comprising 3no. two-bed town houses and 11no. one and two-bed apartments) and associated works - Warehouse, Albert Street, Old Town, Swindon), the Committee considered: -

Councillors Malcolm Davies, Fionuala Foley, Jane Milner-Barry, Stan Pajak and Peter Watts spoke in respect of this application.

Submissions in support of the application can be broadly summarised as:

·       The application had been amended after previously being deferred to take into account comments of the Committee.

·       The development using good quality materials would be an enhancement of the area.

·       Additional cycle storage had been provide in the properties to take account of the non-provision of car parking spaces.

·       That the development is sustainable with easy access to the town centre, shops and public transport and would help meet the housing need within the Borough and was in accordance with the Local Plan and the NPPF.

·       That the development would provide significant regeneration benefits.

Submissions opposing the application can be broadly summarised as:

·       The lack of car parking spaces might lead to cars being parked in the Christchurch car park or adjoining streets.

·       In was likely that people buying these properties would assume that they would be able to apply for a Residents Parking Permit.

·       Cycle storage was insufficient and should not have been included within the dwellings.

·       The lack of car parking space could create traffic issues when tradesmen were visiting the properties or deliveries were being made to them.

Resolved - That the Head of Planning, Regulatory Services and Heritage be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions set out in the report together with any amended, omitted or additional conditions (including that occupants of the development will not be entitled to a residents parking permit) and the completion of a Section 106 agreement to secure the necessary mitigation. In the event that the applicant fails to agree to enter into an agreement or fails to agree to an extension of time to allow sufficient time for the Local Planning Authority to deal with these matters then the Head of Planning, Regulatory Services and Heritage be authorised to refuse planning permission.    

In respect of application numbered S/18/1373/SASM (Erection of 2no dwellings 77-78 St Philips Road, Stratton St Margaret, Swindon), the Committee considered: -

          Name                                 Address/Organisation

          Gary Llewellyn                     Agent

          Councillor Claire Crilly          Ward Councillor

          Ron Wade                           Local Resident

          Stuart Westley                    Local Resident

Councillors Toby Elliott, Stan Pajak, Jim Robbins, Vera Tomlinson and Peter Watts spoke in respect of this application.

Submissions in support of the application can be broadly summarised as:

·       The site brought a derelict site back into use and protected two existing buildings which would be refurbished.

·       A construction methodology, requested when the application had been previously deferred, had been provided and the material supplier had confirmed access to the site was sufficient.

·       The application is sustainable and in accordance with National and Local Planning Policies and Guidance including NPPF and Highway Regulations.

·       There was a shortage of housing provision within the Borough which the application would help to address.

Submissions opposing the application can be broadly summarised as:

·  The developer had no right of way to access the site in respect of the new buildings and the current landowner would not provide permission to use the current access.

·     The width of the access to the site varied and would not be suitable for construction vehicle or emergency vehicles and did not meet national standards.

·     That a vehicle and pedestrian could not use the access lane side by side.

·     That lorries or large vehicles accessing the site would need to mount the pedestrian footpath potentially damaging it.

·     There were safety concerns relating to the access once construction commenced.

·     That if granted the development would affect the privacy and security of adjoining properties.

·     There was no mention given to the removal of materials on site.

·     The construction of the development would create additional traffic.

·     The residents of 34 and 35 Orchard Grove would suffer a loss of amenity arising from the development and its construction.

·     Should the application be granted there would be lighting issues in respect of the access lane which might impact on the amenity of local residents.

·     There was no reference to how utilities would be provided to the development.

·     Some information provided to the Parish Council had been unclear.

Resolved - That planning permission granted with the conditions set out in the report and such other conditions as the Head of Planning, Heritage and Regulatory Service may determine.

In respect of application numbered S/18/1845/CHHO (Erection of a two storey rear extension and pitched roof to existing dormer window - The Cedars, Widhill Lane, Blunsdon), the Committee considered: -

          Name                                 Address/Organisation

          Stuart Miles                        Agent

          Jim Taylor                            Blunsdon Parish Council

          Suzie Simpkins                    Local Resident

          Councillor Alan Bishop         Ward Councillor

Councillors Toby Elliott, Vera Tomlinson and Peter Watts spoke in respect of this application.

Submissions in support of the application can be broadly summarised as:

·       The scheme before members had been revised to reduce the loss of amenity to the neighbouring property.

·       The application was in compliance with Planning Policy and Guidelines.

·       The revised application would not appear overly dominant to adjoining properties.

·       The application was intended for family use and appeared compliant with Planning Regulations.

·       The appeal into the previous application had found that the ground floor extension was acceptable but that the tree metre first storey was too large and following a second refusal the application had been amended to reduce building mass and the loss of amenity on the neighbouring property.

Submissions opposing the application can be broadly summarised as:

·       The loss of amenity to the neighbouring property through a loss of light to a bedroom in the neighbouring property causing permanent shadowing.

·       There was little change to plans that had previously been refused.

·       The application if granted would appear as a harmful dominant structure and affect living conditions in the adjoining property.

·       The application was contrary to Policy DE1 and Swindon Local Plan.

·       The drawings submitting by the applicant are misleading based upon the existing footprint of the property which in turn would affect the extension which would protrude 2.5 metres past the adjoining property which would mean the 45 degree rule would not be achieved.

·       There had been four previous applications to extend the property.

·       The close proximity of the extension to the boundary would affect the neighbouring property as it was close to a patio windows and a bedroom on above.

·       That a site visit would put the application into perspective and that no site visit had been made in respect of the current application.

Resolved – That Planning Permission be granted in respect of application numbered S/HOU/18/1845/CHHO subject to the conditions set out within the report.

In respect of application numbered S/HOU/18/1670 (Erection of a single storey rear and two storey side extension (retrospective) - 5 Bydemill Gardens, Highworth, Swindon), the Committee considered: -

          Name                                 Address/Organisation

          Pauline Webster                  Highworth Parish Council

          Councillor Alan Bishop         Ward Councillor

Councillors Alan Bishop, Tobey Elliott, Nick Martin and Vera Tomlinson spoke in respect of this application.

Submissions in support of the application can be broadly summarised as:

·       A similar application in size and footprint had previously been granted and the application sought to retain minor elevation changes and sought to vary the building materials to the single storey rear extension.

·       The extension is in accordance with the guidance set out within Policy D1 and the Residential Extensions and Alterations SPD and is not untypical across the Borough.

·       The material used are not so out of keeping with the property or neighbouring dwellings to be considered impactful to area and if the approved changes to materials were carried out the effect on the neighbour would be negligible.

Submissions opposing the application can be broadly summarised as:

·       There were concerns as to whether the whole of the blockwork adjacent to the boundary could be properly rendered.

·       That the choice to use alternative materials at the rear of the property was deliberate and was intended to reduce costs.

·       The January 2018 planning permission has been ignored in respect of the quality of materials to be used and is in contravention of the Town and Country Planning Act references to the use of materials.

·       There is a loss of amenity to neighbours arising from the construction of the breezeblock wall 11 inches from the boundary of the property.

·       That a site visit should be conducted to gauge whether the extension complies with the planning permission granted.

Resolved – That retrospective planning permission in respect of application numbered S/HOU/18/1670 be granted subject to the conditions set out within the report.