Transcript

I didn't really hear an answer. Maybe somebody else can answer the question. No doubt it was a committee that imposed the heads of terms for the Section 106 agreement. No doubt it was elected members who decided to require the various community facilities that the parish council is now unhappy, didn't get delivered. Can anybody tell me who took the decision that was the question? And it's not a question. I'm not expecting the case officer to know the answer, but somebody may know the answer. Somebody took a decision to overrule the requirements imposed by elected members for what should go into the Section 106 agreement. The committee approved the school for dual use for the community hall at that time, so the committee endorsed the application for the community use to be in the school. Then there was, following that, the supplemental Section 106 in association with that reserve matters for the school. So, in effect, it was the committee that made that decision on the basis of the officer recommendation at the time. Well, I don't agree with that. I mean, clearly, lots of schools allow use of their halls, but it doesn't mean, you know, a school is a very limited person. Anyway, could we possibly have an answer later on about who took the decision to change the required community facilities? Because I don't think the committee, in allowing a school to let the community in, would cancel out something that was required by legal... Anyway, that's probably not a matter for today. It's set out in the report, in the committee report, for the school, the reserve matters for the school, that that would be... That was the intention, that the school would take the community use. Okay, well, developers always say that. Well, I mean, I can look into it, and I'm happy to look into it, and I don't know if Kenny or anyone else wants to say... I was going to ask... I was going to just... Kenny did put his hand up just now, so I did wonder if he wanted to come in on that. Thank you, Chair. Just to touch on the flood risk matter, just for clarity, flood risk one is the least likely land to flood. So there is an area of land along the north part of the site and beyond the north, which there may be a mapping issue about some surface water flooding. But the experts and the drainage team assure us that that is historic. And with the residential development and the local centre and the school development, in recent years, drainage works have taken place, and the risk is seen by the technical experts that can be dealt with by a condition that they're suitably satisfied that condition would suffice. So the flood risk that may appear on the mapping isn't such an issue, certainly not with the technical experts. So looking back on the history, as Jen rightly says, the original 2004 outline was the determination made by committee. And then subsequently, there was an application for reserve matters, which included the school for a dual use, which was approved. And then subsequently, we had in recent years another application for the school, which Councillor Newberry, you might recall, where it was a further extension. And this issue about the community use dropped up. And at that time, we made it quite clear to the school of their obligations, because I think there was some doubt that that would be forthcoming. And then that prompted a discussion between local Councillors and the school. So it's enshrined as a requirement. It's still a requirement, albeit it's now enshrined within the approval for the school, which followed on from the original outline. So it's a separate application, but it's linked to that original outline because it's a reserve matters application. And as Councillors will probably appreciate, all reserve matters must comply with the principle of the original outline consent, albeit the section 106 that bound the outline was modified because of change of circumstances. As Jen rightly says, this site that's before committed today was identified for multiple potential uses, including recycling facility, a potential future health centre and community centre. But with the modifications that have been made in 2013 and more recently last year, there was no evidence to back that up as a deliverable development. And the Council rightly made decisions in 2013 and latterly last year to allow for those modifications to the section

1. What I don't know in terms of your question, Councillor, is who made that ultimate decision. The modifications would have went through legal, because obviously there's no modification to the section 106, but who the signing off officer was, I don't have that answer today. It'll wait, it'll wait for another day, but no, you'll let us know. Many thanks Kenny. Thank you Kenny, appreciate that. Any more questions then please. Sarah, Councillor Gibson. Thank you. Jen, just one quick question. Outside the northern boundary of the application, there is that area of the land drain or stream, I'm not sure what it is, and there's a piece of land to the north that's behind the mixed use development as well. Do we know what land classification that is? The reason I ask is that of course the building is incredibly close to that boundary and depending on what happens to that piece of land, it could ultimately affect the aspect from those windows and for the use of that building. I'm just trying to find a plan that might show it a bit better, that's it. That is effectively an attenuation basin, so it is required to be retained as part of the drainage network, but it's also public open space, a green infrastructure that was agreed at the original outline and again, reaffirmed or reconfirmed at the reserve matters for that built form that you can see there, so it's pretty much protected as green infrastructure, public open space, drainage attenuation, so that will be staying. It will be quite hard for someone to come and build on that. Thank you, that answers my question. And just, this is more anecdotal, in the 3D render, that facade will get dramatically changed when it gets to building regulations of course, I would imagine, because the nib that is over the top on a south-west facade wouldn't comply with part of the building regulations. I didn't realise that to be honest. No, I mean that's anecdotal, it'll come back, but anyway. Let's just whizz through again, which bit? So that very large window that goes onto a presumably community space on the first floor has a little nib over it, which is completely irrelevant in terms of a south-west facade and wouldn't comply with part O. So anyway, it'll be interesting to see what they do when it comes to it. That's useful to know, thank you. If it's just a question of removing that, you know, then we'll be looking at that. No, it'll be a case of protecting that window quite more significantly, it'll be interesting to see what they had in mind, but I mean, that's not. Yeah, well that's interesting and useful, so thanks. It's useful to have a heads up knowing that this isn't quite over, potentially. Thank you for the point, Sarah, that is an interesting one. Before I go to our first speaker, Sarah, I apologise for putting you on the spot, the legal team has been referenced twice in a couple of, did you have anything to add to any of this? Chair, only that I'm aware of the modifications and I'm aware of the routes used for those modifications to the section 106, and that they did come through the legal team, and they were advised upon by the legal team, where the authority within the council to undertake those modifications comes from isn't something that I've got with me right now, but it is obviously something that I can find and can provide to the committee. Thank you for that. We've obviously picked up our deliberations on that, which is why I asked you, but your views are consistent with what Kenny and Jen have both said anyway. All right, well, thank you very much indeed for that, in which case then I'm going to go to our first speaker, if I may, Anna Gillings, thank you. Chairman members, thank you very much for allowing me to speak this morning. My name is Anna Gillings from Gillings Planning, we are the agent for the application for Frontier Estates who are the applicant. I have just three short points I'd like to make. Firstly, there is a need to deliver care beds for local people in this sustainable location. As Jen's already said, the care homes propose to be dual-registered, so it can provide for nursing, residential and dementia care, and there is a genuine evidenced and functional need for the care beds, particularly beds that are able to meet dementia needs as of here. This is even with the two recent approval of the schemes at Long Lees Lane and Western Way. The need's been accepted by adult social care and the data is the same as our data. In approving all three, you'd actually be meeting Melchoram's needs, which would be a great thing, and that's not even coming close to meeting the county's needs. In terms of an operator, we are at advanced discussions with an established care provider. We don't yet know the exact splits of residents between dementia care, nursing and residential, but as with other schemes that have come before you, this remains flexible so that the home can meet the need at the time. Secondly, appropriate contributions are proposed to be made. We absolutely agree the NHS's views are really important and they've requested the contribution of 32,000 using their methodology, which we absolutely agree to, and they are now satisfied and there is no objection from the NHS, the Indicator Care Board or the PCN. Thirdly, it is a well-designed home. The scale of the care home is appropriate in relation to the surroundings, which include three-storey buildings. The second floor is set partially back within the roof to reduce the overall scale and articulation is provided through the use of pitched roofs, gable features, projecting bays and a variety of pallet of materials. Appropriate distances are retained between the closest residential neighbours to protect their amenity. So in summary, it is a well-designed, high-quality building that responds to its surroundings. All the technical consultees have raised no objection, subject to the conditions which we all agree to, including the one on EV charging, which we could expand to include all 20 spaces if that's what the committee wants to do, including highways who are content with the parking, the access and the trip generation. So as such, we commend the application to you and urge you to support the application. Thank you. Thank you, Anna. I appreciate that. Now, just for a clarification, do we have Will Rees here? You do, you do. So please do. But we've decided it will just be me. Sorry? It was just going to be me, so we're done. Right, okay. So you came on to get some more support. I don't, yeah. Happy to answer questions as required. Right, okay. That's good. What about Sam Rees? Same as. Same as. Right, okay. Let's go through that quickly, then. In which case, then I will turn to Councillor Mike Sankey, please. Good to see you. Thank you. Okay, thank you, Chair. To start with, I'd just like to answer a couple of points that were raised during the questions. Firstly, the car park at Verbena Court is used by parents for the school drop-off and collection. And at those times, it is, well, pretty chaotic in that area. So if that does coincide with the shift change around from like that of the care home, that could be quite problematic. Also, I would add that there are care homes in the area currently that have spare capacity. I know this because I visited a couple looking for a placement for a family member. So there is spare capacity now. So that's those put to one side. Moving on, I've got a slight feeling of deja vu coming to this meeting this morning, as we were here not too long ago, as you know, deciding a similar application. And we recently debated for Council the communicative impact of solar farms. And I wonder if perhaps we should also discuss the communicative impact of care homes. Whilst I say that slightly tongue in cheek, there is a serious consideration there which I shall come back to in a minute. So I called the application in at the request of Melcham Town Council. They have concerns over the size and scale of the development, the parking, which I just mentioned, access on the transport links. There are bus stops nearby, but there's not much of a regular bus service. I would point out also policy six of the made neighborhood plan for Melcham states that such applications as this will only be supported in the most sustainable locations closely linked to local services and public transport. This point was echoed by Melcham without Paris Council who went on to cite the lack of a genuine need for three care homes in the area. With within one mile of this site, we've got one approved on appeal and another approved by this committee a short while ago. In 2022, the section one of six agreements covering this site was changed to remove the requirement for the site to be used for medical facilities. Originally, as we've heard, it had been earmarked for community facilities, and they were subsequently incorporated into the new forest and sandwich school. Some of those facilities now are not available for community use at all, whilst others have limited availability. The original section one of six community use clause was changed to medical use in 2013. There was no publicity or consultation on this section one of six change on the first that Melcham town or Melcham without Paris Council knew of that change was when the 2022 change was considered and can consulted on. As a result of this, I asked unsuccessfully for the process off the 2013 variation to go to scrutiny to investigate why the parish council hadn't been consulted. This eventually led to my motion to full council, which was passed last year to provide more scrutiny in future where community facilities are proposed to be provided on a shared use spaces to avoid the situation we now have in Melcham East, where the intended community facilities are even not available or those that are can only be accessed when it suits the school. Whilst we've been told by the planning officer quite rightly that this section one of six history isn't the material planning consideration, I felt I should highlight it to provide some context and to explain why there is disappointment and resentment within the community and local councils that this site is no longer being used for community facilities. In October 2022 Melcham GP surgeries wrote to Wiltshire Council stating that this site isn't required for medical use and that they have sufficient capacity for the needs of the next five years. However, at a subsequent Melcham area board meeting, they said they were struggling to cope with existing demand and had problems with recruitment and retention. And yes, I did point out the contradiction of those two statements at the time. As our area board meeting last month, I asked the senior partner of one of Melcham's surgeries if they were concerned about the cumulative impact of three care homes on their ability to cope. I didn't get the answer I was anticipating, nor if I'm honest, the one I was hoping for. The senior partner stated that they were actively recruiting and that, and I quote, more patients equals more money. If you want to know the truth of the matter, ask the residents I represent, as I have, how easy it is to get a GP appointment. I suspect the answer will be the same as members of this committee would get off your own residence if you were to ask them. Coming back to the cumulative impact, we will potentially have three separate employers vying for the same pool of employees to staff their facilities. On the plus side, one would hope that the principles of supply and demand would mean that care staff in Melcham would be offered enhanced terms and conditions of employment. The reality is that there wouldn't be enough staff to go around and potentially the standard of care in all three facilities could suffer as a consequence. Finally, returning to the Melcham neighbourhood plan, the AECOM produced housing needs assessment, which I would argue has more credibility than offered by the applicant, states that the needs of an aging population should be met by ensuring that all new homes should be built so that they are more accessible, so that with appropriate adaptations, residents are able to stay in the comfort and security of their own homes for longer. For these reasons, Melcham town council and Melcham without parish council ask that committee refuse this application. Thank you, chair. Thank you, Mike. Appreciate that. Jen, did you want to come back on anything there? You said it all. In which case, I'm going to go back to the members then, and I'm going to ask, I want to open this to debate, so I'm going to ask for a proposal, please, to be seconded. The silence is almost deafening. In which case, I'm going to start the debate, and by proposing the officer recommendation exactly as it is on the paper, and Pip seconded it. Right. This is just a form of getting a debate underway. So, did you want to speak to that at all, Pip? Yes, please do. Thank you. I have enormous sympathy with this. Enormous. And the questions that Councillor Newbury asked are exactly the same as applied to the Woolminster urban extension. We have over a quarter of a million for health services there, but NHS don't want to know because they can't, they could do the building, but they can't recruit the staff, and there is no room to extend our only doctor's surgery. And the same as the community building, we've had to accept, and Mr Green knows all of this because he's in charge of it, and that is the same with the community building, which was asked, I believe, by Councillor Newbury when we passed something there. So, although I have enormous sympathy, we are where we are, I think the same would apply here that I have commented on the care home in our urban extension, and that is the parking is not adequate for visitors and care staff. We have just been told, I understand, that also the car parking facilities nearby are used to service the school, which again I have in my ward, but overall I would have thought we cannot find, unless one of my colleagues can, a really genuine planning concern to prevent this going forward. So that's why I seconded you, with reluctance, but I just cannot see any reason that we can, for consistency, say this is not something that should go forward. Thank you, Pip. I appreciate that. Does anybody else want to speak? Ernie, Councillor Clark. Thanks, Chairman. Obviously, I don't know what the fellow committee members are thinking, but this seems to be brought to me. My heart says no, my head says yes. This thing is Councillor Newman, the community centre being removed, it seems pretty shocking that that was just taken out without members, or even the parish council was being consulted or knowing about it, but as the case officer says, we can't turn the clock back, so we have got to allow that. The fact it is outside the settlement boundary, again, I will cast my mind back several years from the community governance review for several areas, and for Trowbridge it was basically decided that the bypass, for want of a better way, which is like Eastern Ways now, would effectively be the boundary in time. So I think we have got to accept that although it is outside that open space at the moment, Melchamp is going to go up to that Eastern Way. So, as I say, I really don't think it is appropriate, but similar to what has been said just now, I can't think of a valid planning reason to object to it so regrettably, but I am going to have to vote for it, although I really don't want to. Yeah, I appreciate that. Sarah? Well, actually, what I was going to say is very similar to Ernie, Pip. I did look to see what reasons we could have on the grounds that just in terms of the amount of occupation of building on quite a small site did seem highly inappropriate, and if care homes are going to be this far out of a town centre, one would expect them to have more external space and more environment around them in which the people are able to enjoy external space. This does feel very much like a rabbit warren full of small beds, which is sad, but I also was unable to find any planning justification and I did look. Thank you, Sarah. Don't really ask me to speak. James and Sir Shepherd. Again, it's a real shame to come to these meetings sometimes. You know, you leave with a heavy heart sometimes, and I think today is one of those days. What went on before went on before, and we can't have any control or influence on that, no matter whether we think it was a dreadful decision or not. That's already happened. We are faced with the decision we have to take today, and because of the lack of a credible planning reason to object to it, I will also fall in line and support him. Thank you for that. I don't think there's any doubt that the three points that Christopher raised earlier absolutely hit the nail on the head for many of us, really, because they were very big concerns. I'd like to thank Mike for the case that he put forward, because you can't gainsay anything that Mike said, and he's got a real heart for the community here, but that's the reason I put the proposal in. That, and the fact that I get very nervous when you hear about ransom strips, and sometimes I wonder if this is more deliverable than the one that we've put through already. I've got an issue in my division that's running on for years and years, and will continue to run on for years and years, because nobody can reach an agreement over a ransom strip, so I actually question the ready deliverability of that scheme. It's not a professional view. I'm not speaking on behalf of anybody that's helped myself. It's just a personal view. So that's why I put forward the proposal. So on that basis, then, I am going to go to the vote. So the motion is proposed by me, seconded by Pip, that we agree the recommendations of the officer, as you see in your papers. So can I have your hands, please, for that vote? Thank you. And any against? And any abstentions? Right, okay. So that's 10 for one abstention. Yes, just one abstention to that. So the motion is -- yes, Pip, we'll have a comfort break. So I'd like to thank you all for coming, and those that have spoken eloquently in both directions to this application. Thank you very much indeed. Thank you. But the motion has been carried. Actually, if you can make it back to sort of 5 to 12-ish, it seems like that. Thank you. [ Applause ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] >> All right, folks, I think we're all back. Thank you for coming back pretty promptly. Thank you for that. And so I'm going to move on to the -- yes. But it's a little bit like herding cats sometimes. I had to go out there beforehand and drag people back in harness. But it's all been pretty prompt today, so thank you for that. Thank you for your indulgence on the previous application. That's not an easy one. It was never likely to be. This one is a regulation of three applications, so it's a little bit different. Line of Banks at Lineham. So I'm going to hand over, if I may, good to see you, Callum. Over to you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Chair. So the application before you seeks full planning permission for works involved in reinstating the B4069 road at Lineham Banks with engineering works including drainage, land regrading, and demolition. The road in question is a single carriageway road leading south and east up a steep hill into Lineham from Dorsey Vale below. At the point of the sites, the road runs more closely to an east-west access. The road has been closed since February of 2022 following a major land slip. The application seeks to achieve its reopening and long-term retention. Here we can see some of the damage when viewed from the east. That's from Lineham looking down the hill. And then looking back towards the same points from the west from the downhill section. And then here is a drone image from above. The recommendation made to you today is for approval subject to conditions. The overall site extends to just over four hectares including land above and below the road. Land downhill to the north is in agricultural use whilst to the south is a parcel of land on which an incomplete replacement dwelling is currently sited. The site is unconstrained in planning terms given that it's not affected by landscape heritage or ecological designations. The land slip resulting in the closure of the road caused significant damage over a stretch of this road preventing access to Lineham from this direction. Lineham is in policy terms a large village with a limited range of employment services and facilities. It's nevertheless a settlement on which a number of smaller settlements rely for these services and facilities. The closure has caused highway pressures on a single track road leading to Bradenstoke in the east necessitating the re-categorization of that road to one-way status. Anyone seeking to access Lineham from this direction have therefore been required to redirect via Royal Wooten Bassett or from some directions via calm adding significant distances to the journey in some cases. The application has been supported by survey work concerning ground stability. Movements of this road have been known to occur to a greater or lesser extent over a number of decades. In order to safeguard the roads future therefore it's proposed that works take place in the land above and below the roads to improve land stability. A significant proportion of this in terms of the site area is the regrading of the land and drainage improvements. To the south of the road a sequence of drainage solutions is proposed in the pattern seen here, a herringbone formation. The highlighting shown here in pink indicates an area of around half a hectare to be regraded in order to moderate the slope. The submitted reports also indicate a likelihood that the land slippage was anticipated by the weight of material associated with an ongoing replacement dwelling development located above the site. Built form in that part of the land is to be removed. North of the roads and highlighted blue here is a little over a quarter of a hectare of further regrading work. There's also to be further land drainage works slightly more sparse in comparison to the works above. The road will also be supported by a minor retaining wall below the roads. Now in terms of planning policy the application is supported in principle under core policy 48 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy which lends supports to proposals that improve accessibility between towns and villages, helping to reduce social exclusion, isolation and rural deprivation where the development will not be to the detriment of the local environment or residents. The proposal is considered to deliver these kinds of benefits avoiding unacceptable environmental harm. In terms of conditions ecological and highways impacts are capable of being effectively managed with management plans for the construction phase. Pre-commencement conditions have therefore been agreed to that effect. A condition is also proposed to ensure that the landscaping proposed is implemented in a timely manner and another ensuring that contaminated land is dealt with properly. Subject to conditions there are no concerns with regard to the impacts of this development and given the real benefit to local residents that restoring this road to use would entail. I have no hesitation in recommending approval of this application. Thank you, I appreciate that. Do we have any questions please. Sorry as a local member I do have a few questions so could I ask them please. The first one was about, I know there's been some issues about accessing the land above and below the road, the proposed returned road and what was happening about compulsory purchase orders which were being talked about for some of the road because they weren't being given access. That was the first question. Would we be here at all if there hadn't been, I mean would this have normally just gone straight through if there hadn't been an objection? The drainage issue is a concern to people in Dalcy which is downhill from that. They've had a lot of flooding recently and I trust that this has been taken into account and considered by the officers and I think, I mean the other questions were about the roads which I think has been, which roads were going to be accessed. I think that's all being covered in the construction statement and using the old road to form foundations for the new road. So it's just the three, it's the compulsory purchase order, it's whether we'd be here and the drainage is a concern. So I can certainly answer in terms of the reason we're here, it's because it's met what is a low threshold for Regulation 3 applications. That's set out in our scheme of delegation. If it had been, if there were no objections then it is likely that this would have proceeded by delegated decision. In terms of the status of the purchase of the land or whatever's going on with that, we do have members of the project team here who may be able to speak better to that. Thank you Callum and thank you for the question. I'm Jack in the Major Highway Projects team and I'm overseeing this scheme. So I'm starting with the compulsory purchase, the land negotiations. Obviously as you can see from the plans we're entering private land either side of the road to facilitate these works. On the northern side, currently on the screen, we do have an agreement in principle with that landowner to access the site and deliver the works. On the southern side, negotiations are ongoing so we are still working towards those. If we're not able to secure access into that site to deliver the works through agreement, there are powers within the Highways Act 1980 that we will utilise to access the site and deliver the works. On the drainage front, so before the land slip this road had a fairly informal drainage arrangement in the fact that water used to fall onto the site and run off the edge of the road and away it would go. So as part of the scheme we seek to formalise the drainage within the whole area through a pipe network and this will be released into the nearby watercourses. To reassure your local residents this will be controlled and there will be betterment provided as well so we will not be releasing any additional flows into the local watercourses that aren't already received basically. We use attenuation through oversized pipes on the network to achieve that. And further stats, our drainage team have confirmed that the solutions provide the required 20% betterment in discharge rates and do not increase flood risk elsewhere. Thank you for that, Karen. Carol, just to come back on that, I think the bar is set very low. I think you only have to have one objection for it to come to committee. Carol, Councillor King please. Thank you. It goes back to Elizabeth's question about the southern side of the road. It says we intend to acquire land and responsibility for all maintenance. Do we know what the cost of this acquisition is going to be and the cost of ongoing maintenance? Strictly that is not a question for planning. Our colleagues may be able to answer that but that is to be noted. I just wondered if it was part of the overall cost that would have already been quoted. I would actually revert back to the cabinet meeting last month where the details of the scheme were set out and were agreed. We do have identified budget for the overall project including land acquisition costs and land assembly costs. Clearly the level is subject to negotiation so that is still in train effectively. But rest assured the budget we have available to deliver this scheme includes for land access. Thank you, Howard. Just a clarification. I was a bit confused. There is some semi-built buildings at the higher point. I still can't get my head around which is north and which is south. The higher ground or the lower ground. We are looking at south here. We have the two half built properties at the top left. You mentioned there were some buildings that were not going to go ahead. Are we talking about those? If not, what impact will any further development in that area up there have given the plans for the drainage that is going to continue? So that you can see sort of half built there. That is to be removed. Sarah, Councillor Gibson. Yes, this is presumably not for the planning but if there is a compulsory purchase then we are talking about compulsory purchasing the land that had previously presumably got planning permission where that dwelling is. As I understand it, there was approval for replacement dwelling. As I understand it, it was not proceeding in accordance. It was not quite in the right place. There were some issues in terms of enforcement anyway. But there was an approval for a replacement dwelling on that land. Yes, I know it is a different application so presumably that will go ahead in a slightly different way but if you compulsory purchase the whole site then that is a whole different conversation presumably. So the intention in this application is that there would be no built form on that area to the south of the site. Thank you. Sorry, that was a supplementary question following Adrian's. What I really wanted to ask was in one of the objections, they make the point, and this is probably a question for the Highways team, they make the point that despite repairs at this point, one of their points is that this whole area is very unstable and that therefore we might be spending a considerable amount of money at the moment to repair this particular point and then find that there are various other points along the same stretch that are subject to similar issues of instability for the land. Has there been surveys done to verify that claim and if so, are we mitigating that at the same time while we have got mobilisation and all the works going on at this point to make sure that that doesn't happen elsewhere, just a future proof it? So I know that our colleagues do have some plans to continue monitoring and expand where we're sort of looking at in terms of that perhaps. If you can come back on what you said basically yesterday. Yeah, absolutely. So early stages of the land slip, we undertook quite an extensive ground investigation to understand how the land slip occurred and how we could repair it. That was on the image you see there. We did quite a lot, but we also took the opportunity further along the road where we know there are stability issues to install quite a number of monitoring points, which we've been monitoring for the two years since. So whilst this plan and application will seek to get the carriageway reinstated at that location, we will be undertaking works further along the road within the budget to get the carriageway reopened and safe to use. Furthermore, we will continue monitoring this road for the next couple of years to monitor movement and obviously be able to proactively plan future maintenance along this stretch to try and keep it open and usable effectively. Perfect. Thank you very much. Thank you, Janet. That's assuring. Carol. Sorry, I had another one. This kind of goes back to what the objector said, but I'm wondering because I remember travelling this road in the early 80s when I lived in Christian Malford and worked in Swindon, so I was quite familiar with it at the time. But how did these people manage? How did they manage to do without it? And do we have any examples of something that went disastrously wrong because ambulances couldn't get through or something? Have we really proved that it's better to reinstate the road than to use the alternative routes people have been using for over two years? I'm happy to pick that one up as well. The short answer is there's been a proper headache. The temporary arrangements have been quite a headache for the local community. We are dealing with it currently, but it's not an ideal situation. So following the landslide, we worked closely with the local communities to implement a number of changes. This included one way restrictions on certain roads, speed limits, weight limit introductions to try and reduce the amount of traffic using those routes. It's working to an extent, but it's not ideal. This road previously took around five and a half thousand vehicles a day, which is quite a lot, and it's using the local road network. So, yeah, getting this road reopened is a key priority for the local community and for wheelchair council due to its kind of strategic importance. Hope that answers that question. Yeah, thank you. I think it's five and a half thousand vehicles a day gone down to five hundred probably. It's had a dramatic impact on the local community. I think you might come back on that. Reinforce that as a local member. It has been a nightmare. There are a lot of the lanes that are not the official detail, which is very long on a single carriageway. I think anecdotally it's had a massive impact on the Peterborough Arms, the pub at the bottom of the banks there, which is very unfortunate, to say the least. Councillor Woodout. Thank you. Obviously, I do not know this area apart from what I've read in the Wilts of Times and what a problem it is. My only question is, what is the alternative? Do we just leave it? Is it impassable? Do we not have to try, Chair, to resolve the situation? Because at the moment it's no good anyway. So that's a personal not knowing the area, but it just strikes me if we don't approve something, whether it's this is another matter, that we're at stalemate, aren't we? The residents can't use the road. Nobody else can use the road, and it will stay in this collapsed state forever. Thank you, Chair. Do you want to come back on that? I mean, just obviously in terms of the do-nothing scenario, yes, that would continue the state of affairs, which is quite, well, very dissatisfactory to the local population. But obviously we have a proposal before us, and the recommendation is that it complies with Core Policy 48, which is quite clear that it supports applications where improvements to accessibility are proposed in this way. Thank you. I actually lived at the bottom of the banks here for 11 years, so I know it extremely well. So I can concur with that, although I'm always interested to hear both sides of this argument. If we've got no more technical questions, I'm going to go back to you, Buff, if I may, and ask you to read out Alison. Being Alison'd, first of all, and I'd just like to make a short statement as me. So as Alison. Well, as you're both people today, you can do it whichever way you like. We'll start with Alison's, and then I can just agree with her and sort of add in a couple more points. She's at an appeal that Mr. Green was talking about. "I am disappointed that I am not able to join you at today's meeting to speak in person. Unfortunately, I will be spending the day in a planning appeal for a traveller site on Clack Hill, Bradenstoke, which this committee turned down previously. Firstly, I would like to pay tribute to the enormous amount of work that the officers have put in to get to the stage we are at today. Nobody asked for or predicted such a catastrophic event to happen to Leinenbanks back in February '22, an event which has affected the lives of so many people in many different ways for over two years already. Officers have had to invest time, money and effort into resolving this situation against a backdrop of upset, criticism and dissatisfied residents. Secondly, I would like to politely request that today you simply agree with the officer's recommendation for permission with one minor amendment, condition five. Residents have been waiting long enough, and we need to get on and fix this road now so that we can all look forward to getting our lives back to normal. Yes, there is going to be short-term disruption to both the environment and the peaceful enjoyment of residents' lives while construction takes place, which is why condition five is important. We do need to know that the hours of work, and they need to be adhered to. It is going to get noisy at times. People understand that, but if we know what to expect and when, measures can be put into place to avoid it. To that end, I would politely request that an additional line is added to condition five, which reads 'J'. Details of how communications will be made with residents, including contact details for reporting any issues. Thank you for listening, and please make the right decision. Shall I now become me? Please do. I will ask the officer about that. Or do you want to do that first? I can do that now. Would you be happy with that, Colin? I don't see an issue with that. That would be amending a precommencement condition to which agreement has already been received. I don't foresee a problem attaining written agreement to that slight modification. It is a very soft amendment, isn't it? There is absolutely no problem with that whatsoever. The communications plan is in development. Can I ask you, Sarah, if you would be comfortable with that? I don't see an issue with making the amendment. If this is the proposal, then I think we will put that in. Please continue. I just wanted to say how remarkable, I'm echoing many of the things that Alison was saying were either side of the road, our divisions. But it's been a fascinating, agonising occurrence, this, because there has been international interest in the engineering project from American universities, and I gather that led to a large number of bidders for the construction, which has been very helpful for us. I am thoroughly cheered to read that the highway construction is expected to last for 60 years, and the heavy engineering for 120 years, which will be a vast improvement on the regular maintenance that the previous road required. Residents, you were asking, residents on some of the little lanes, Chesley Hill, Trow Lane, Bowds Lane, in my division, let alone Alison's, have suffered, and even wider, some of the other villages around the area have had much more traffic, much heavier traffic. The roads conditions, the verges, the speeding traffic has been very tiresome for them, and they are indeed looking forward to having their tranquility restored, and their lanes able to be amended. Again, some of the roads like Clack Hill has really had a tough time. I do, I echo Alison's request to keep up communications to the residents and the parish councils, but I think that this is a very positive move forward, and having read the review and recommendation, I'm happy to propose that we accept it. Okay, thank you for that. So we've got a proposal, got it seconded. Kevin, did you want to come back on anything? Is there anything that you've picked up that you need to come back on? Not particularly. Is that a proposal with the amended condition? Yes, and seconded, I take it Pip with that in as well. Does anybody want to speak to that? So, Councillor Gibson, thank you. I'm hugely supportive of reinstating this road. I know it's been an absolute nightmare for the whole area, and I'm really relieved that we've found a suitable solution, and of course that it's going to go ahead so quickly, but I can't help but just say that I really hope that at some point some wonderful similar solution will be sorted for Bradford and Avon, where we have 20,000 cars or vehicles across that bridge every single day with no pavements, and I know this isn't the format for that, but I'd just like to leave you with that thought. Thanks. So, Mark and the Sandplots need to bear that one in mind in the future, then. Agent, Councillor Foster. Can I ask, will Councillor Threshaw be coming back to check in 60 years if what they've suggested is going to happen? Just for clarification, it's going to last that long. It's not going to take 60 years to do, or the engineering works 120 years to do. Christopher. Thank you very much, Chairman. Could I ask a question? I mean, I'm supportive of this as a planning application. It seems to me to be all, you know, within our policies and so on. The objector is making a point about the high cost, and he says millions of pounds will be spent on this. I mean, that isn't a matter for us. It's not a matter for us as a planning committee to worry about whether the scheme can be afforded. But can somebody tell us, has somebody got another report going to the Cabinet or somewhere else on the total costs of this, and are there any alternatives? Is there a different scheme that might cost less? Just to sort of pursue that point from the point of view of the objector. I don't know if anyone has an answer to that. My view is that any alternative would cost very significantly more, probably, but has anybody got a view on that? Yes, please do. Yeah, happy to pass comments upon that, Chair. Yeah, again, I would refer back to the Cabinet meeting in April, where the line of banks and the solution that we are proposing and bringing forward was actually heard at a Cabinet meeting. So that's really the reference point for that. In terms of alternatives, when we were doing the initial design following the ground investigation works, which in themselves took nearly six months, we looked at various different options, including, we did actually consider at one point, should we be abandoning this route and actually looking elsewhere? The fact is that we as highway authority have a duty to maintain the current highway network and the B road at the moment forms part of that network. Because we've got that duty, we also have powers to do that. If we were to look to build an alternative route across farmland through green fields, we wouldn't have the statutory powers immediately to be able to deliver that solution. We would potentially be looking at long-term public inquiries, we would be looking at huge land assembly, and frankly, this road wouldn't be open for many, many years. So on balance, upgrading and repairing the existing route, which is the highway, and we as the highway authority have the ability and the powers to do so, is seen as the best way forward. Thank you for that. I really appreciate that. Let's add some clarity there. But if you put your hand up. I just wanted to echo that and say that as local members, we have been kept very well informed and all the different schemes have been looked at so carefully and we're very impressed by the work that officers have done. And the final commissioning was very carefully done with sort of eight different bidders, looking at all the different prices that they were offering for the viability of their schemes. It really has been very thorough and very efficient, I think. I absolutely agree with that. I think it's been an excellent piece of work on behalf of – on the part of our officers. I've been very impressed with the thoroughness with which they've undertaken this. Just as chair of financial planning, I can assure you that all the necessary bits have been gone through on the finances and it has been via environment select and everything else that is required. I only hold a watching brief to make sure that that scrutiny process is done. Thank you for that clarification, Pip. Appreciate it. So do we have any more questions? In which case, then, we've got a motion on the table proposed by BAF and seconded by Pip. So I'll ask you to go to the vote, please. This is the bit – well, with the bit added on, the appended bit on Condition 5, just to keep the residents informed, et cetera, et cetera. So can we go to the vote then, please? All in favour? And that is unanimous. Thank you very much indeed. I've got no further business, no original items. Thank you. I did get you out by lunchtime as well. Yes, we do. Yeah. So thank you all for your attendance. Safe journey's home and hopefully your store gets the sun. Thank you. [BLANK_AUDIO]