Transcript

Right. Good morning, everybody. Welcome to the meeting of the Strategic Planning Committee. I'm Councillor Ernie Clark and following full council on 20th of May, I've been appointed by group leaders and monitoring officer as the chairman of the committee and I will be presiding over the meeting today. Therefore, there is no need to vote to appoint a temporary chairman. Councillor Nigel White has been appointed as vice chairman. At this point, can I say thanks to Councillor Greenman for his previous work as chairman and our endeavour to run the meetings as well as he did. So, thank you for your work in the past, Howard. Can I ask that all devices are turned to silent for the duration of the meeting and if there is a fire alarm, please exit the building via the nearest exit and congregate on the grass in front of the building. Please note that this meeting is being recorded and broadcast live to the Wiltshire Council YouTube site. All documents pertaining to the meeting can be accessed on the Wiltshire Council website. I will now formally open the meeting. So, apologies. Apologies have been received from Councillor Brultigan, who is substituted by Councillor Chris Vaughan, and from Sam Blackwell, who has been substituted by Councillor Andrew Griffin. I would ask if there's any others, but I think we've got everybody else here, haven't we? That's it. Item three, minutes of the previous meeting, pages 7 to 32. The minutes of the meeting held on the 15th of April were included in the agenda pack. Do any members have any corrections to make to the minutes? Okay. I will ask, in that case, that we... Can you... That is a point of order. Thank you. I'd just like to have clarification from the Dem Services Officers that everybody participating in this meeting today has attended the mandatory planning. We were told by email that it was very important, before any of us participated in any planning meeting, that we'd all attended the mandatory training. I would like that clarified and put on the record, please, Chair, if that's possible. Thank you. Yep, certainly. I can confirm that everybody in attendance today has undertaken the mandatory training to take part in the committee. And I will record that in the minutes. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much, indeed. So, I will ask that we approve and sign the minutes as a true and correct record, and I seek a seconder. Thank you, Councillor Palmer. Are there any objections to confirming the minutes? Okay. There being none, the minutes are approved. I will sign them at the end of the meeting. Item four, declarations of interest. Next, are there any declarations of disclosable interest or dispensations granted by the Standards Committee? None. Item five, Chairman's Announcements, just the one. Please note that the date of the next meeting has been moved from the 24th of June to the 1st of July. Item six, public participation. I will now summarise how the item to be determined will be debated and how public participation will proceed. Firstly, the planning officer will present their report and explain their recommendation. They may invite comments from other officers, if appropriate. I will then ask members of the committee to indicate if they have any technical questions they wish to ask of the officers. We will then proceed to public participation. Up to three objectors and three supporters are able to register to speak for each item for up to three minutes each. Can I just say that for this meeting, obviously, there will be a bit of flexibility on that, but for future meetings, I intend to take a lead from the new Chairman of Wiltshire Council and enforce the three minutes rather more strictly. But I would point out to people that you can, of course, email members in advance if you want to make any points to members of the committee. Following the public slots for objectors and supporters, there are slots for statutory consultees, such as parish council, town council. We will then hear from the formal representative from relevant parish councils for up to four minutes. After the parish councils, I will then invite the local unitary member for the application to speak. I will then open the item to debate. I will ask the first committee member to speak to move a motion, which must be seconded. Officer advice may be needed to be taken in relation to any motion. At the conclusion of the debate, I will proceed to the vote. Is everything clear to everybody? Okay, doke. Chair, can I just interrupt? Sorry. I thought, are we not going to vote for a Vice Chair in this meeting? No. At the full council meeting, it was agreed that the appointment of Chairman and Vice Chairman for this and several other committees will be delegated to the group leaders and the monitoring officer. And that has been done. So the Chairman and the Vice Chairman have been selected, if you like, by the group leaders. So that is a done deal. Okay, that wasn't my understanding. That is what was agreed at full council, and it has been done. There should have been an email sent out. Certainly I had one yesterday, but that may have been as a group leader. But the Chairman and Vice Chairman have been agreed for the year by the group leaders. Okay, item seven, planning appeals and updates. I will hand over to Kenny Green to give a presentation. Could I just say to people, please, if you have any questions relating to the old serum, it may be better if you direct them to either the monitoring officer or the head of planning, just in case anything is said in public that the Wiltshire Council might regret later. Wiltshire Council is applying to take it to judicial review, in case you weren't aware. But anyway, I'll hand over to Kenny. Thank you, Chairman. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and a welcome to all our returning councillors and new councillors. So on page 33 of the agenda, there are two determined appeals. And for the benefit of our new councillors, it's probably worthwhile me saying that the appeals recorded on the agenda for Strategic Planning Committee are those determined applications and appeals that were reported to this committee. There are other appeals, and they appear in the respective area committee agendas. So the page on the agenda only lists two appeals where the applications came to this committee. So following on from what Councillor Clark mentioned about the old serum appeal, which I won't mention too much about, the one that I will concentrate on is the one for land west of Westbury Road in Warminster. And as I can see, there are quite a number of councillors that may well have heard me say previously that this appeal has been ongoing for at least 15 months. And it was an appeal that was adjourned twice, and it was an appeal that was ultimately dismissed. And as members may well have seen themselves, it was for an application for 205 dwelling houses on a land outside of the settlement of Warminster. So it was a speculative, unplanned development. And at the time of the council's assessment, it was a five-year housing land supply judgment call, which during the course of the appeal, which lasted 15 months, that position changed, which meant that the actual case came back to this committee twice. And some of the members here today may all recall two reports coming at different times with two different recommendations, bearing in mind that the housing land supply was a critical material consideration. Ultimately, this committee, as a council, determined that that application should be refused. And the developer took it to appeal. And as I said, that appeal was adjourned twice. And ultimately, a decision was made in mid-May. And it was also an issue that was raised at the early point of that appeal by officers, that circumstances had changed in terms of drainage, which the appointed inspector had to take into account. So whilst the reports that came to this committee were relevant at the time, things changed. So when it came to the appeal scenario, officers representing the council had to make the inspector aware of different changing circumstances. And ultimately, the appeal inspector came down heavily on the fact that part of that site was at flood risk, which is a material consideration for planning applications. And it was certainly a key issue for that appeal. Now, the site, for those councillors that don't know the particular location, it isn't subject to river flooding. It's surface water or ground flooding. And it just so happens that during the course of the appeal, we had updated information from the Environment Agency, and our mapping system was updated, which we passed that information on to the inspector. And the inspector duly took that into account and asked lots and lots of questions of the key parties to that appeal, both the appellants and the council. And the inspectorate found that although the council didn't have a housing land supply, and we still do not, it's paragraph 11 of the MPPF, which councillors here today will hear lots about, the presumption in favour of development when the council doesn't have a housing land supply isn't automatically engaged when there is technical ground such as flood risk. That's one key issue that the government have made very, very clear, that the presumption in favour of allowing housing on sites that aren't planned aren't subject to that presumption, quite rightly, because land subject to flood risk shouldn't be developed upon. So that appeal made it very clear to the appellants that they should have went through the sequential test process. That is a technical assessment that's done effectively by officers in conjunction with the Environment Agency for sites that are subject to flood risk, where the council is asked, are there other sites that could accommodate that level of dwellings on sites that aren't at flood risk? So councillors will hear flood risk zone one, two and three. Land zone one is not at risk of flooding. That is land that we consider, and the Environment Agency consider, and the government has outlined as being acceptable for residential or vulnerable development. Land that's subject to two and three, three being flood plain, that's not considered acceptable for housing or vulnerable developments. And part of this appeal site was found to be within two and three. So the inspector, not surprisingly, dismissed the appeal. The other interesting parts to that appeal decision, for the benefit of councillors that may not have read the decision, is that during the course of the appeal, the appellants complicated matters by submitting misleading information, conflicting information, and the inspector certainly picked up on that in his decision notice. So it's an interesting decision for members to read, notwithstanding the fact that it does touch upon the issue that this council has to consider when we've got housing on sites that is not planned, is not part of our allocated suite of development sites. But, as I said, if there's technical grounds to refuse residential development and paragraph 11 of the MPPF is not engaged, and the planning balance is such that development should be refused, then that is certainly a robust reason to dismiss appeal, and that is what that appeal ultimately failed on. There's lots more in the appeal decision. It's a very lengthy appeal decision. And, as I said, it took 15 months for the planning inspector to reach a decision. I will pause there, Chair, just in case there are any questions, because I do have a brief comment to make about the old Serum appeal. Thank you. Absolutely. Any questions for Kenny on that one, please? Councillor Newbury. Thank you, Chair. Thank you very much, Kenny, for the update. I didn't attend the hearing, but I know of one or two who did, and they were disappointed that Wiltshire Council didn't seem to be firing on all four cylinders. Indeed, was it there? I'm just... Could we know who represented us at the hearing? You did, Kenny? You were there, Councillor Newbury. You were there? Okay. I'm sorry. I'm struggling a little bit because I wasn't there, and I'm not at all sure quite what exactly happened, but did we have anyone else other than you, Kenny? I mean, you obviously were struggling. You were working on your feet. You were reeling with the punches, so to speak, but I was just going to ask to be reassured that the committee's decision was suitably defended, and I'm gathering that it was. Well, like I said, there was a course of action that that appeal followed because of the changing circumstances. So we had a barrister, Hashi Mohammed, represented the council as council, and we had the case officer and a range of consultees advising and helping the inspector along the way to advise upon flood risk, biodiversity, all sorts of issues. It was an appeal where the council did not formally contest the appeal because of the two grounds that the application was refused on fell away because of the housing land supply position and Section 106 was ultimately entered into by the appellants. So there were no grounds that the council could defend, but there were issues that the council was advising the inspector on as being material to that appeal, notwithstanding the changing matters relating to drainage. So this council, at the time of its assessment, we didn't have grounds to refuse on flood risk because the mapping didn't show that land being subject to flood zone 2 and 3 risk. It was during the course of the appeal that the mapping was updated with the help of the environment agency that we then had to instruct or advise the inspector that there was changing circumstances that he had to take into account. And we were there as a main party advising the inspector that that was a key issue that he had to then take into account. So we had a range of people supporting the inspector on behalf of Wiltshire Council. I'll move on to the second listed appeal and that is at Old Sarum Airfield. I won't talk about the actual appeal decision because as Councillor Clark rightly says, this council has approached the courts to consider opening up a judicial review and there's obviously legal reasons why we should not be speaking in public about the appeal decision. But as Councillor Clark has said already, if there are any questions that councillors either can think of now or coming up, then the advice is to approach the monitoring officer, Perry Holmes, or indeed the director of planning with those questions relating to the specifics of the appeal. But as things stand, we're waiting to hear back from the courts in terms of our potential challenge. The potential challenge rests off the back of a fire that took place on the site, which was a material consideration at the point of the appeal being heard. So the council has approached the courts and we'll have to wait to hear back from the courts in terms of what they decide. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Kenny. As I say, I don't think it'd be appropriate for any questions. So if you do have anything, if you could follow the lead given by Kenny, please. With that, we move on to item eight, which is the one planning application we have today, 2023 05157 Land of Freestone Grove, Westbury. That's pages 35 to 102 of the printed agenda. And I'll hand over to Verity to present the report recommendation. Thank you, Chair. I just thought it'd be useful just to do a quick run-through of the difference between an outline and a reserve matters application. So the application that is subject to today's meeting is an outline planning application with all matters reserved. Therefore, I thought that I'll just give you a quick rundown of what an outline application is. So an outline application seeks to determine whether the principle of the development is acceptable. An outline application can also include some matters for consideration or like the application before members today, all matters are reserved. So therefore, in this instance, the only matter that is open for consideration is whether the principle of development is acceptable or not. A reserve matters application follows an outline consent being granted and that provides the specific details of the proposed development that were not submitted at the outline stage. The reserve matters, which follows the outline, comprises of five specific elements, which includes the means of access. That's how the access that would serve the site, how the site would be connected to the existing network, the accesses and the sort of internal road layout for vehicles, cycles and pedestrians. Also the appearance, details of how the development would look like, landscaping, which relates to planting, details of any screening or enhancement to protect the immunity of the site, layout, how the building's access areas of open, access, sorry, open space are set out within the site. So the layout is specifically about how that site would be set out with all the particulars that the development's wanting to achieve and the scale, which relates to the height, width and length of each building. So this application is seeking outline planning permission to construct up to 36 dwellings with all matters reserved. Therefore, as previously mentioned, this application is seeking to establish the principle of developing the site only with all specific matters relating to the development to follow as part of a future reserved matters application at a later stage. This proposal constitutes a development plan departure due to housing being proposed on an unallocated site located outside the settlement limits of Westbury, which is why this case is before members today in accordance with the scheme of delegation. This application was previously presented to members during the April strategic planning committee meeting with members voting to defer the application to allow time for officers to contact the applicant to provide them with opportunity to consider three specific points. Firstly, to reduce the quantum of housing from the up to 40 dwellings initially proposed to 30 dwellings as put forward in the draft neighbourhood plan site allocation. Secondly, to consider the construction routing to the site to reduce construction traffic travelling through the existing residential estate. And lastly, to seek the applicant's agreement to reduce the time frame for submitting the reserve matters application from two years to three years. Each of these points will be discussed during the presentation and are set out from page 35 of your agendas. Officers are recommending the application be approved subject to the signing and sealing of a section 106 legal agreement and the planning conditions which are listed from page 42 of your agendas. I just have one correction to make regarding the wording of condition 13 which should read as no development shall commence on site. Currently, there is an erroneous knot which will be removed. The red outline shows the land that's subject to this application. So as background, the application site forms part of an undeveloped parcel of grade 3 agricultural land which borders relatively recent residential development to the north and west with the existing null cul-de-sac to the south. There's a better image of that later which I can show you. The application site extends to 1.7 hectares in size. To the east is Coach Road which is a single track road with limited passing places and beyond Coach Road is open countryside. The application site is located within flood zone 1 and is not shown to be an area susceptible to groundwater or surface water flooding and does not fall with any landscape designations but does fall within buffer zones associated with the Salisbury Plains special protection area, the Greater Horseshoe Bat linked to the Bat Bath and Bradford-Navon Bat special area conservation and within the grey hatched area of the Trowbridge Bat mitigation strategy. In terms of landscape character it is appreciated that the site is currently a green field but it is located on the existing urban edge of the town and is viewed in context of the existing residential developments. The council's landscape officer does not consider the proposed development of the site to harm the wider character of the area or to be sufficiently harmful to the important views of the Salisbury Plain escarpment to warrant a landscape-based objection. This map just shows where the existing public rights of way are. So to the south of the site is West 1 which connects to West 1A which is to the Null which is a cul-de-sac and then you've got Coach Road along the eastern boundary. The proposal would be looking to establish two existing sorry two new access points to existing roads through the Millbrook estate and the full details of which and details of the internal road layout would be reserved for a future reserve matters application. In terms of the principle of the development whilst it's appreciated that the site is located outside the defined settlement boundary which is defined by the solid black line which encompasses existing residential development to the south the application site is surrounded by existing development to the north west and to the south which is located within the settlement boundary so the actual application site is located right on the boundary of the existing settlement limits line and to the east of the application site so the other side of Coach Road Coach Lane is the a draft site allocation that is coming forward as part of the emerging Wiltshire local plan which has been shown by the blue hatching which if found sound by the planning inspector would result in this subject site being completely enclosed by residential development and the emerging local plan policy which is policy 62 land at Bratton Road seeks to allocate land for approximately 260 dwellings and land for nursery provision whilst only limited weight can be afforded to this at the moment this proposed allocation does demonstrate that the council considers this particular side of Westbury to be acceptable for housing and to be a sustainable location this slide provides an indicative concept plan for the Bratton Road site allocation so the areas sort of coloured in green and sort of that kind of mustard colour and sort of this is the an extract taken from the emerging Wiltshire local plan with the site subject to this application sort of shown to the west of that the concept plan shows that this sort of mustard yellow colour is a part of the draft site allocation where potentially residential development could be cited which again sort of endorses the fact that this particular part of Westbury is considered suitable for new housing in terms of the second deferment point relating to construction traffic routing the applicant has been approached following the April meeting to review all available alternative routes around the site to seek whether there would be possible haulage routes that could be utilised in order to reduce construction traffic having to go through the existing Millbrook estate the applicant has agreed to consider additional measures such as restricting the size of construction vehicles should they need to travel through the existing estate roads and has accepted the imposition of a planning condition which would need signing off prior to any development commencing on site for the submission of a detailed construction traffic management plan there might be an option to use a section of coach road to the east for some deliveries which would not be dissimilar to what was agreed as part of the approved construction management plan for the adjacent Millbrook development but this would require full consideration and assessment in addition to a full package of mitigation measures which the construction traffic management plan would need to include in terms of other possible routes the applicant has stated that a route from the south west corner of the site would have ecological impacts through the removal of shrub and trees in addition to the temporarily blocking up of a footpath that links the Millbrook estate with Bitham Park estate to the south which leads on to local schools and the town centre the other option that was raised at the April meeting was the formation of a possible route through the emerging site allocation to the application site which again would likely involve the removal of several sections of hedgerow along the eastern boundary given that the boundary on the eastern edge of the application site is to be retained and enhanced as part of the application to a minimum width of 10 metres to support bat habitat the loss of any additional hedgerow along this boundary is unlikely to be supported and a revised note has been added to the construction traffic management plan condition requiring the applicant to consider all alternative routes outside of the application site to see whether there would be possible haulage routes outside the red line as part of any future discharge conditions application in order to limit the number and amount of construction traffic that might need to go through the existing estate also as mentioned at the April meeting the construction traffic management plan would need to demonstrate how construction traffic would be managed to and from the site and would need to include a robust package of mitigation measures to ensure the protection of existing residents and the highway given that a considerable amount of work would be needed to produce the construction transport management plan it is considered unreasonable to delay the determination of this outline application especially when there are no specific details relating to the proposal that is currently open for consideration it is at this stage the principle of the development in response to reducing the number of dwellings as requested by members during the April meeting the applicant has agreed to reduce the quantum of housing down from the previously proposed up to 40 number to up to 36 the applicant has produced an updated illustrative master plan just to demonstrate how the site could be set out but it is important to mention that this drawing is purely for illustrative purposes only and will not be included within the approved plans list for the application the proposal description also reads as an up to figure which sets a maximum threshold of any subsequent future reserve matters so we shouldn't be seeing applications come forward at reserve matters stage that are seeking to increase the quantum of housing beyond the 36 number and whilst it is appreciated that the number of dwellings has not been reduced to the 30 dwelling figure that was previously requested by members in the April meeting this site has not been allocated in the made neighbourhood plan and there was no policy requirement to restrict the number of houses to 30 on this site the applicant has also provided a density plan to show the application site with neighbouring residential development so we have got one on the opposite side of the road which is coloured in blue which shows the quantum of housing to be at a 38 dwelling per hectare ratio and the Millbrook site which the application site would be adjoining to to be at a 38.7 dwelling per hectare figure which is shown by the pink shading the now proposed up to 36 dwelling scheme represents a 34 dwelling per hectare figure so the quantum of housing on this site would be less than neighbouring sites and less dense furthermore the concept plan for the neighbouring site allocation in part of the emerging Wiltshire local plan indicatively shows that based on the 260 dwelling figure the quantum of housing would be at 46 dwellings per hectare which would represent a far greater density compared to this proposal which with due regard to the context of the site with it neighbouring existing residential dwellings the council's housing land supply deficit and with the national planning policy framework requiring developments to make optimal use of land to ensure homes are built at comparative densities the reduced number of dwellings is considered acceptable in this instance just as background and as previously mentioned this particular site was previously identified by the neighbourhood plan working group as a potential neighbourhood plan site allocation for approximately 30 dwellings which is shown by DDH3 this however was removed from the plan and after concerns were raised by Natural England regarding the potential value of both sites for BAT and therefore the MAID plan did not include any site allocation however it does reveal that the site was considered a suitable location for future growth by the neighbourhood plan working group this site this slide shows that in terms of sustainability and with reference to the submitted transport statement that the application site is located with good connectivity to the existing town centre which is located approximately 1 kilometres away with the railway station being 2.5 kilometres away with there being access to local bus services within 200 metres of the site we've got an existing school sort of shown by the yellow square a little supermarket and the walking distance from the site to the town centre being about approximately a 20 minute walk the image shows that there are a wide range of facilities in proximity of the site and therefore it is considered to be a sustainable location as discussed during the April meeting the ecological parameters plan has been provided to identify the ecological features of the site and to ensure that bat habitat on the site would be protected and as previously mentioned this identifies a minimum of a 10 metre buffer along the eastern boundary which should remain as a dark corridor with there being sort of no lighting to ensure that it won't have any impact on light sensitive species and the proposal also seeks to enhance on-site grassland and provide native planting logs piles for invertebrates and the introduction of bird and bat boxes the council's ecology department drafted an appropriate assessment which concluded that this proposal would result in no negative impacts on the bat sack which Natural England were consulted on and subject to such mitigation measures being implemented which can be secured by planning conditions no ecology based objections have been raised and I've got a couple of like photographs and this photograph is shown from the sort of proposed access point from Freestone Grove to the north this image shows the sort of proposed access point from Cheviot Road to the west of the site this photograph is taken from the existing public right-of-way to the south which you can see there's the application site but you can see the sort of existing residential development along the western and northern boundaries here's a photograph taken from Coach Road facing the sorry this is again from the public right-of-way sort of showing the existing residential development to the west and this is taken from Coach Road facing the existing public right-of-way and again you can sort of see the existing developments to the south of the Null and then along the western boundary this photograph was taken further north along Coach Road facing towards the western boundary and again you can see the existing development that sort of borders the application site and this demonstrates the urban fringe character of the site with this site bordering the existing residential developments as previously mentioned this proposal does represent a departure from the adopted work-to-course strategy due to the proposal representing speculative development on an unallocated site outside the settlement boundaries for Westbury however the emerging local plan sets out how the council should be delivering new growth in the Trowbridge housing area which includes Westbury up to 2038 within this there is a need to provide a further 540 houses in Westbury which this application would contribute towards furthermore following the government's recent changes to the MPPF in December and changes on how housing numbers are calculated the council now has to provide 84% more homes compared to previous calculations per annum in addition these changes have resulted in the council needing to demonstrate a five-year land housing supply with a 5% buffer which has resulted in a significant increase in the amount of housing the council needs to provide these changes have impacted our current housing land supply figure which is now at 2.03 it is considered that this proposal is located in a sustainable location surrounded on three sides by existing residential properties with the eastern side of Westbury being considered an acceptable location for future housing growth within the emerging local plan this proposal would provide additional housing and affordable housing units the benefit of which carries significant weight at a time when we need to boost our housing supply in response to the third point of the deferment of this application at the March meeting the applicant has agreed to reduce the time frame from three years to two years for the approval of the reserve matters so again the condition has been addressed in the suite of conditions to reflect that change you conclude following the MPPF changes the council now has to provide a significant increase in housing and is unable to demonstrate a five year housing land supply as a result the presumption in favour of sustainable development which is also known as the tilted balance is applied as set out in paragraph 11 of the MPPF in this case there are no production policies that would prevent the tilted balance being engaged and there are no technical objections to the application as the mage neighbourhood plan does not allocate land for housing the protections that exist in paragraph 14 of the MPPF do not apply to this application and the council must therefore determine the application against paragraph 11 d where there is a presumption in favour of supporting new housing with applications only to be refused where the adverse impacts of allowing the development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies of the MPPF as a whole the provision of up to 36 additional dwellings and up to 11 affordable homes would contribute towards addressing the council's housing shortfall and meeting affordable housing needs which has afforded significant weight in the planning balance the site's location and access to public transport links and services and the economic benefits arising from the development both in the short-term and long-term and the contribution towards seal are given significant weight moderate weight is given to the section 106 contributions the provision of open space play provision habitats and improvements to the public right of way it is however duly appreciated that the proposed development would be on an unallocated site located outside the defined settlement boundary for Westbury which represents a departure from our current core strategy however officers consider the harm attributed to this plan conflict the disruption to existing residents during the construction phase of the development and the loss of agricultural land does not significantly outweigh the benefits of delivering new housing at a time when we need it and therefore only limited weight can be afforded to such harms officers therefore are recommending the application be approved subject to the section 106 and planning conditions thank you chair thank you very comprehensive so hand over to members of the committee for any technical questions councillor griffin thank you I appreciate this an early stage as an outline application within the section 106 considerations has any particular facilities been anticipated or contemplated I note that there's a a doctor's surgery within a reasonable walking distance of the proposed site but does that have sufficient capacity at the present time and anticipating future developments both this one and others considered to the east of the site I also note there appears to be minimal provision in the illustrative master plan that's on screen at the moment and looking at Google Maps there does not appear to be any significant play areas in the existing developments to the north of the site the north of the NHS contributions none were put forward as part of this development I need to just double check whether they provided any specific comments on the application but all these draft section 106 obligations are set out from page 86 of the agenda which does include obviously the affordable housing requirement and upgrades to the rights of way in terms of the master plan they are providing an area of open space and they are providing some sort of play facility to the southern southeast corner of the application site just on the point of section 106 contributions there are three legal tests that apply for obligations that the council must pass must go through that assessment and as Verity said if we don't have the evidence to back up a contribution for say a doctor surgery then that would be open to challenge and as a council we should not be putting a burden on a developer that cannot be evidenced just for a point of clarity planning cannot seek a developer to pay for more nurses and doctors that's a national decision all that planning can really do is if the evidence is there to justify a capital project like an extension to a doctor surgery that's been identified by the national health service and that additional population would trigger the need for an extension to a surgery for example that's the suggestion that could well then be a burden or a development contribution we don't have that for this quantum of development we don't have that sort of evidence from the national health service on the point of the residential scheme that may well come through for the land to the east that would have to go through its own assessment and consultation with the NHS to work out if it's 260 additional houses what impact would that have on the local services such as surgeries and all the rest of it but just for a clarify planning does not get involved in adding more doctors to surgeries or it has to be a capital project and for all obligations such as that there needs to be a defined project planning decisions cannot just ask for money hoping that there's a project in the future unless we've got a project unless we've got a defined evidence base we cannot introduce that as an extra burden thank you thanks good information for the new members of the committee are there any further technical questions councillor newbury okay thank you councillor smith i'll come back to you just a clarification around the status of the westbury neighbourhood plan i'm getting the impression that there's a new version in progress but i just would like to know how far advanced that is and is it replacing an existing one because this obviously has comes into the equation in terms of the tilted balance and all that i know that the westbury neighbourhood group are advancing their neighbourhood plan but again at this stage it doesn't carry any weight it hasn't gone through referendum and it hasn't gone through an inspection so it doesn't carry any weight at the moment we've obviously got a made neighbourhood plan but as that doesn't include any land for housing certain protection policies that are set out within the NPPF don't apply of the council thanks chairman i think officers have done amazingly well with the three points that they were given to take away from the last meeting so i'm not i'm not trying to be difficult or sort of raise any last minute tripwires but i've got a question here which is it is a technical question it's one that i've asked before and not really had an answer to it's about this developer contribution of 52 thousand and something for early years provision now the report says that we have seven preschools and nurseries and one child minder within a two mile walking distance but that doesn't begin to tell me if there is a chunk of money which the developer has to pay over presumably to the council as part of the section 106 agreement what would that happen to that money presumably somebody would try to get hold of it presumably somebody one of those existing early years providers or somebody else would come along and say i'd like that money please but how does it work i mean how does the process go forward how does somebody how does the money transfer from the developer to the council to somebody else and what is it spent on i'm completely mystified by this to answer this one sure so if we receive money from any developer for a specific purpose such as future early years provision or additional capacity for an existing nursery that money comes to the council it's held by the council until such time that we've got a dedicated project so the money comes to the council it's held if there's no project and nobody comes forward asking for that money then section one of sixes usually have a 10 year clawback clause in which case the council is obligated to pay that money back to the original developer so in terms of the point you're asking councillor Newbury we've got a dedicated team in the council's education team that deal with early years provision they advise all our private sector operators when there is a project or a development that is going to contribute a sum of money and they can request that sum of money as long as they've got a evidence base to justify it so if they're saying well we've got a nursery we are looking to expand it and extend to get more capacity and it's going to cost x amount then a judgement can be made in terms of how that money that the council has got for that purpose can be spent so we've got a monitoring officer that deals with all section 106 contributions and Debbie may that Debbie Evans sorry is always involved with that sort of post decision decision making in terms of when the council's got money available and we've got a dedicated project that meets that purpose obviously all committee reports set out what we think is necessary in terms of a planning justification to meet the three legal tests so there is a process but it's not done by planning officers it's done by a combination of the service within the council that is involved with that purpose in this case it would be education and the council's section 106 monitoring officer so it seems to be up to some education team officer who gets the money ultimately and whether it's first come first served it might be that case or there may be a list of known undercapacity facilities that are waiting for additional resources to part fund a project that's entirely possible as well because we know that some nurseries are either at capacity or very close to it and if they've got a project in mind and I do stress it can't just pay staff there has to be a project in mind and it's usually an extension to add more space to accommodate more early years care well I won't pursue that could I chair while I've got the microphone so to speak could I just say a few more words I think it was Councillor Smith who earlier on asked the question about how we were here today and you popped up as chair that was absolutely as agreed by us on the 20th of May I mean he may not be aware that in the last sort of since the creation of Wiltshire Council every annual meeting we've had a leader's motion which has set out the number of people to be appointed on each committee and has also named the chairman and vice chairman of each committee exceptionally at our meeting on the 20th of May the group leaders had got themselves that nobody knew exactly what was going to happen that day and the best that councillor Ian Thorne could do on the hoof was to say look I'm moving the normal motion with all the committees but we haven't at the moment got the names of the chairman and vice chairman I would like to propose to the council that it delegates the job of appointing those to the monitoring officer in consultation with the group leaders and one or two people around the room were expecting that and one or two thought this is a new departure but that was agreed nobody rather smoothly thank you for clarifying that Christopher because our group leader told us different names so that's why we're expressing confusion because we thought somebody else was going to be the vice chair I think that's something for your group to take up and resolve rather than for this committee well that's a question of the monitoring officer I suppose well whatever the appointments were delegated to the monitoring officer in consultation with the group leaders so somebody thinks something's gone off the rails that's a question of the monitoring officer who isn't here today I think but no doubt he can be found I think that can be taken care of outside this meeting absolutely are there any other technical questions on the presentation councillor Vaughan thank you I'd like to learn a little bit more about the access in and out of the site during the construction phase I've got many years of experience in the industry and I know what pain it can be for residents with big wagons coming in daily especially in winter months when roads can get very muddy so I think it's fair to say the proposal on itself is a decent one is designed well it fits in and the houses aren't so dense so I think the biggest point for us would be learning how that works in practice keeping roads clean and tidy and safe and obviously safer residents when you know daily there could be very many big wagons coming and going you know can I learn a little bit more about how the safeguards and stuff is going to be put in place and how roads can be kept clear during the construction phase thank you for your question and given that this is outlined we've got the specific details to do with the sort of internal roads layout of the actual application site and details of those accesses aren't known at this stage but in terms of the construction transport management plan that would contain specific details as set out on page 46 of the agendas which includes the routing plan number of vehicles likely to be expected on a daily and a weekly basis and also details of road cleaning wheel cleaning and a suite of other demands that we would want to see included within that construction transport management plan including any mitigation measures any sort of potential road stopping up things like that that might be required in order to ensure that construction vehicles can travel safely around the existing network without there being a significant impact on existing residents the details of that would need to come as part of a future discharge of conditions stage where the package of measures and the details of their construction traffic management plan would then be fully assessed when we know a bit more about the specifics of the development of the government so I think the important point to make is that this is an outline with all matters reserved so there is a follow-on application well there's two applications to follow on from this if the committee was to endorse the recommendation to approve and after the legal agreement is signed because no decision is issued until the legal paperwork is issued the point about the construction management plan is that a developer needs to get that approved before any work start on site and following the April meeting officers had a follow-on discussion with the applicant and agent and made it very clear that abnormal loads through that estate will not be acceptable and an alternative route will be needed so that is why they accepted and agreed that some loads some routing through the estate will be probably proposed at a future stage and what we'll need to know as officers and as a council what type of vehicles and how often will they have to go through the estate we will maintain as officers that we will prefer for that site if it's endorsed by this committee to be serviced via either coach road or an alternative route and there could well be an alternative route that may well come forward and I did mention this at the April committee meeting that members may well recall that that land to the east being a proposed adopted site there may well be a future stage where both sites concurrently are either developed out or at least accessed for enabling works so there may well be the option there might not be the agreement in place at the moment between the various landowners but that may change and we've made it very clear to the applicant and agent that we will want to see the evidence why that route cannot be taken from that land to the east coach road is adoptable so the council would want to see what types of vehicles could use that route to avoid the residential estate so the condition is robust it would require the developer to bring forward all the details that we require on a regular basis for residential development so this is not unusual and we would fully expect the survey work to be done for the roads a condition report to be done to make sure that we know what the pre-existing condition is so that post any construction we've got at least some evidence to show any damage that's taken place but ultimately as officers we fully accept local residents are very concerned about this development potentially being accessed by all the construction vehicles through the estate we don't think that's acceptable and we've made that very clear to the developer and they are aware that there are options there are alternatives and that condition will exist as long as the committee endorse its imposition on any decision to endorse the recommendation to approve and there will be two follow on applications there will be a discharge of condition for the applicant to submit all the details that we've set out in that condition for officers to consult and include the council's highways team on that consultation and also the follow on reserve matters application which will set out the developer's ultimate layout for the scheme so the two will go hand in hand following any endorsement for the principle and it is the principle that is up for decision today nothing else because we don't even know how many houses it's an up to development and I'll just make a point here that some people might think that when an applicant submits an application for up to 36 that automatically means 36 houses will be built anyone that knows the Woodmeed estate will know that that was allocated for a quantum of housing the application came in for less it does happen I'm not saying it's going to happen in this site but developers do obviously maximise for marketing purposes what they think would best for their purposes end up with a sale at the end of the day so there may well be a resulting development that's less than 36 so because the outline is an up to figure a reserve matters application can be any number of houses up to 36 thank you chair thanks Kenny any further questions thank you I'd like to thank you too for your kind words and congratulate you on your appointment it's good to see you there thank you as if not many of us from the existing from the previous committee that are here so it's good to have you there I'm somewhat bemused by the vice chairmanship as well I'm not too sure what happened there but none of us seem to know who that person is I have a point to make really there is a question hidden within there somewhere in passing I do think that the coach road access isn't imperative but I would like to thank the officers for all their work they've done on this because this was discussed in torturous detail of course in the April meeting as all aware which is why these three issues came out of it I want to sound a note of caution really and concern over the two years you'll recall of course that the previous application we had to this in the April meeting was the one in Holt the Redcliffe Homes one where they were happy to bring the application forward in two years and we expressed concern at the time over the five year I think I agree with but nonetheless that's what we're left with today because of the recalculation of the metrics surrounding this but the concern was of course that developers can have a tendency to land bank and we're aware of that possibility we know that there's those that can be brought into the mix and those that aren't brought into the mix but it was that of course that was the main driver behind putting that imperative on the recliff homes to build out within two years and it's that of course that was behind because we managed it with that one secured it with that one but we bought it forward for this one here today so I welcome that because we do need to get these figures into the mix as Yarnbrook is a classic example of that and that really brings me to my point and my question and that is that I note in the report understandably you've put the two years following the securing of the section 106 agreements the legal agreements these agreements can drift horribly and we've seen this happen over years and I know that one of the concerns that I've had and I've shared a number of times within the council here is that we outsource quite a lot of our legal work and that can be a big stumbling block and it can mean that these section 106 agreements drift unnecessarily and make them overly protracted so my concern is and I'm going to send this note of caution and even a question here is can we somehow speed up the process do we have a mechanism do we have more officers do we have more facility capability than the council to expedite these quicker than we have done in the past given that some of them have been so painfully long such that we haven't been able to include them within our housing land supply figure and that is you rightly point out in your report was probably the main one of the three key points that were raised we have managed to secure the applicant agreement to that reduction in the number of years that they would otherwise have to submit the reserve matters application that two years only starts when we got the legal agreement signed and the decision issued in terms of the expediency of getting a section one of sex it can be a torturous affair because I had a decision the urban extension of Warminster took four do as officers is to pass on any committee motion or discussion that any residential scheme that would otherwise make a material impact on the housing land supply deficit is to make that point to our head of legal so that when the instruction goes to legal to say this is a residential scheme that the committee are supporting because it would address in part the housing land supply deficit and therefore as quickly as possible please prepare the section 106 diligently still but try and make sure that it is given due priority that is what we can do as planning officers we don't write the section 106 it's our legal team that do the drafting and they send it off to the other side to review ultimately we do have a part to play members won't be surprised to hear that we are always part of the drafting but there can be major delays in terms of a solicitor drafting up a section 106 I would point out that in recent years reports are becoming more and more detailed and they're setting out all the heads of terms in ever more detail so there really shouldn't be that major delay up front in terms of making a start because we set it out for our legal colleagues in terms of what needs to be covered and it's over to our legal team to make a decision on whether there is someone within the legal services team to write it up or to seek external assistance all I can say today is we will take any instruction that this committee makes today to our legal colleagues to pass that message on thank you Joe well if I may without prejudice we have seen so many instances where frankly some of the reasons for the delay in securing the section 106 agreements have been entirely fallacious and I don't want to see that happen I I'm sure we take a sounding on that but something the opposite can take back move on Councillor Holder thank you really following on from the comments about section 106 and whilst I appreciate this is an outline application and I'm not wishing to prejudge what the committee decides of course there is no guarantee that if the recommendation is to approve this this will necessarily come back to strategic planning committee so I want to specifically refer to comments in the report on page the bottom of page 87 with regards to a very short paragraph relating to the responsibilities of the management company and I appreciate this is an outline application I would ask if this is delegated as a decision to the head of planning to draft up the section 106 as is shown in the recommendation on page 89 that I would what additional strength can we give to the delegation should that happen to ensure that the management company in this instance do actually fulfil their obligations we have across the whole of the county a number of instances where management companies fail fairly comprehensively to deliver their obligations I noticed that my colleague across not just across the chamber but across the other side of Melksham is nodding in agreement particularly in Melksham we have significant number of issues where it appears that the section 106 is that have been put in place historically carry no weight for our residents and we have situations where play areas are not maintained properly where bins are not emptied where dog bins are not provided and I would respectfully ask that when we come through to the reserve matters we have a significantly greater detail of responsibilities and obligations for the management company contained within the section 106 that we can actually hold into account appreciate this development is relatively small but I'd like to put a line in the sand as a new member of this committee to say I will be holding this committee and asking this committee on a regular basis that we actually where we can we have the ability to strengthen up anything relating to management companies responsibilities thank you chair okay I'll get Kenny to reply you're not alone in that many members of this committee are not keen on management committees and I believe there are some town councils that do ask for first refusal to do that but I don't know whether Westbury is one of them but Kenny do you think that was a point I was just going to make that during the course of any application or the early stages of appeal officers have been instructed by our director to have that open discussion with developers about considering any interested parish or town council that have already made it clear that they would be wanting to be part of that early legal drafting stage to take over the management of public open space or play areas I know Trowbridge are very actively engaged and there are others Melksham as well I don't know what the situation with Westbury is we're not at a stage yet where we can discount it it's open for the early discussions at section 106 to have that engagement with Westbury town council so there's definitely that's one option that they could be ultimately the named management company I would take and I fully agree council holder that there are many historic decisions out there where the management company in the section 106 could well have been more robustly written and have a monitoring element to that as well not just setting up a management company we need to know what happens when they fail who then takes over the control all the rest of it and that is something that is now fed into our section 106 I'm not suggesting for a moment that our section 106 cannot be further improved and if this particular application is endorsed and the committee want a specific clause to be beefed up or that particular point about management companies their failings ultimately or the future monitoring that can certainly be taken into account and added to the instruction that we send to legal after any endorsement today thank you chair if I may chair I appreciate you that's that's really gratifying to hear from you Kenny and I think there are many instances where town and parish councils take responsibility for maintaining play areas but don't necessarily take responsibility for maintaining the public open spaces and I think it would be helpful to understand not just for this application for future applications where there may be an upcoming application where there may be a differential approach where it's part parish town council part management company but it's gratifying to hear your comments about the ability to beef up the section 106 agreements because I'm sure the many residents who are affected who are let down by the current management companies will be gratified to hear that and I notice as many colleagues across the chamber are nodding in agreement so it's not just Melcham that suffers from it so let's hope that this new committee has the ability to beef these things up and put stuff in there that we can actually hold the developers to account and as you quite rightly say have a monitoring process so where they are letting the residents down who in many cases pay significant sums of money in ground rent to these management companies actually get the services that they deserve and they're paying for they're paying to them thank you I'm sure that will be done Councillor Newbury I completely agree with Councillor Holder so far as Westbury is concerned Westbury has recently as some members will know Westbury has recently completed the takeover of nearly all of the open spaces in Westbury because the town council was willing to step up to the plate to do it of course there isn't any duty on parish or town councils to maintain open space that's essentially the task of whoever has taken them on in the first place which in most cases is this council as the inheritor of the previous district councils who used to deal with this I'm not sticking to the issues for today I'm not completely persuaded that trying to beef up going along with the idea of inquiring whether Westbury would be willing to I'm not really persuaded that beefing up what's put into the section 106 agreement is going to achieve very much I'm the chairman of a management company and I see it at the sharp end and the difficulty is that you have a requirement on a small number of households to provide directors for a limited company which has all kinds of functions that it has to deliver and you have the difficulty that you have to find people to carry out quite complicated functions who don't necessarily have the slightest idea how a limited company works or how to do it and it's very difficult almost all of the people doing this are unpaid sort of in the same position as parish councillors they put their time in free and for nothing and they're doing their best in a difficult situation and beefing up the sort of obligations to be put on them doesn't I think achieve very much because they're still left scratching their heads as to how to do it and what to do it and how to raise the money and how to persuade the people to pay up who haven't paid up that's another big problem with management companies you get an obligation which the householders have to enter into that they will pay the money as soon as they're asked for it and if they don't do it what do you do you can start suing them but that can be sort of more expensive and time consuming than simply sitting back and hoping that it will turn up so I mean I think this is a new way of doing things which has been sort of trialled ever since we started to get away from the old district councils taking over the public open space and it hasn't worked out awfully well but that isn't an issue for us today all we have to do today is to agree what should go into the section and if we were to get to the point of trying to put something more onerous into the section 106 agreement I would say well difficulty is you still have all the same problems just to come back on one point I mean I do accept the point you're making Councillor Newbury there are section 106s out there and I'm sure you know the ones I'm going to be referring to where we've got or a particular parish has taken over the responsibilities because either the West Wiltshire District Council had that obligation and that was passed on but we have to assess what we've got now and we have to look at the section 106 as it's currently drafted for new developments and all I was saying in response to Councillor Holder's point was that if we end up with a failing management company so if a developer sets up a management company and there is no clause in the section 106 to set out what happens then that's when we need the section 106 beefed up in my opinion we need to have a fallback position clearly set out in the section 106 that the developer knows not to set up a management company that's ultimately going to fail and then we end up with the local residents having to deal with the matter on site that was the point I was trying to make that we need to have a section 106 that sets out the scenario of a management company the developer sets up if the parish council doesn't enter into the section 106 what then happens if that ultimate management company fails what then happens because ultimately it's the developer scheme they should be the one that's obligated to make sure that in perpetuity that site is properly managed properly maintained and all the rest of it and I think the section 106 may well have grounds to be improved and include clauses that deal with that eventuality oh I see so on a general point you think that there could be a fallback that the section 106 provides for the developer to have an ongoing responsibility to make sure that things are done properly well you'd obviously need pretty sharp legal advice on that I'm not against it but I've never heard of it being done up until now so maybe we could note it down for something for us to get advice on before we finalise this section 106 agreement we do have a legal representative here today Mr. Hewitson I don't know if he's got a comment to make on his experience for section 106 is where a management company is set up fails what then happens I think the difficulty will be that typically developers once they've built the development got their money they disappear into the sunset and they effectively cease to exist so I think in many cases it would be difficult to hold the developers feet to the fire but I agree with Kenny that there is one possible fallback position is the option of the local parish or town council taking over responsibility if the company fails clearly you could consider endowments making the developer pay up front so that it's less likely that the management company fails certainly for lack of money but I entirely take councillor's point that the problem is management companies are made up of shareholders who are the residents of the new development many of them have no experience of running companies the management company doesn't exist at the stage of the 106 being agreed with the developer and the developer has little interest in how the management company runs because it will have disappeared into the sunset by the time that stage is reached so it is it's difficult but yeah I entirely take the point there can be fallback positions etc ok thank you I think we're going off on a bit of a tangent here but as councillor newbie says it's something I think we should take back and perhaps it's something the new cabinet member could get involved with and seek his opinion so any more technical questions on this specific application please okay with that then we move to public participation we did invite the applicant to come along but he or they appear not to have done so we just have three objectors and I'll hand over to okay so the first speaker is Paddy Griffin who's an objector I would like to thank the chair and committee members for allowing me time to speak I'm in a privileged position to be able to take time off and stand on part of the residents in Millbrook as not all of them are able to take time off work I'm shocked on two fronts firstly the speed of the resubmission and the blatant lack of addressing all of the concerns raised by the committee and residents in the last meeting my concerns still stand on the access via Freestane Grove and Cheviot Road there is no need to subject residents to years more disruption from construction traffic of any kind or future access traffic for residents the resubmission has proposed a mitigation by reducing the size of construction vehicles through the estate but the same amount of construction materials will be required thus this proposal will result in more traffic after six years of constant construction traffic in the estate is finally finished why does the planning officers feel that it's fair to run access for the field through a completed housing estate why was this field not developed when the rest of Millbrook was built I think the point that is brought up this point was brought up by a member of the committee in the previous meeting the access route shows a lack of planning and thought for the residents by the planning officers and has not considered any other viable options which were discussed in the last meeting as they would have required further work and planning applications by the land owner it's an easy option in their head in the previous meeting we heard that the developer had intended to use police cones to prevent stopping within the construction route meaning that for two years residents would be unable to park outside their own homes this would be wholly unacceptable and further demonstrates that the estate isn't suitable for any additional traffic the increase of traffic would prevent children from playing in the streets and their bikes and scooters etc safely during the summer and school holidays we would like to draw the committee's attention to application 1600 547 in respect to the land off West Drydenham Lane where this committee refused consent supported by it damaged the amenity of their existing residents and unacceptable in the view of failure to fully demonstrate how and how and when it would integrate to the wider allocation once again I want to point out the access route from the A350 to Millbrook on the papers in front of you is incorrect and misleading it shows passing places where there are pinch points this was brought up in the previous meeting and hasn't been addressed further demonstrating the rushed reapplication and lack of planning by the planning officers the intended route is actually extremely difficult to manoeuvre even for light vehicles on a daily basis I feel that no emphasis in this resubmission has been drawn to the wildlife that lives in the surrounding bushes that remain after the landowner destroyed the majority with no permission no thought to the negative effect of biodiversity in this field and the additional planting that would be required to offset in addition it's frustrating to hear that this point was being used to discount viable alternative routes when the landowner has already cut down the hedgerows the ratio of houses to land was also mentioned in the previous meeting the number of houses noted that it should be reduced from 40 to 30 this well we've spoken about this this hasn't been done earlier the planning officer mentioned that land deemed of risk of flooding in zones one and two won't be considered for a viable build site to wind up you've had over three minutes okay yeah I'm almost done um millbrook has been has an attenuation pond currently land off freestone grove has flooded flooded in the last five years so why is this application being considered um in the points you mentioned um this is my last sentence this quick resubmission has been entered without thought without even a bare minimum of thought for the revisions in anticipation it would go through uh with any objection as there would be no time for residents to raise objections this feels underhanded and I feel that the committee members and residents deserve better and the submission should be refused due to not addressing the points raised in the last meeting and the damage it will cause the amenity of their existing residents I ask the members of the committee and chair to take a thought for the hundreds of residents it will affect the field as we have seen is not accessible yeah um it's um through a finished established housing estate and there'll be there are more viable locations elsewhere I ask that you refuse this application thank you okay thank you very much indeed and our next speaker is uh charlie Reynolds please hello thank you um so yes I'm a resident um I'm also an adjudicator at the housing ombudsman so I understand the immense demand that is under with our housing applications from this council and councils across England however I do have to I know this is an outline application but again I go on councillor Vaughan who brought up the access in this estate is not viable for roof trusses large vehicles hgvs you can barely get one car across the road you can't you won't be able to turn these hgvs this will pass my house so I'll sit doing my job every day with the housing ombudsman watching these vehicles no access parking for two years while construction vehicles are there is not viable for the residents of our estate and like I say I understand this is an outline application but further thought needs to go into this before we look at that field in particular although I understand the pressures you're under as well with having to build houses over the coming years thank you thank you very much indeed and finally David Ryder please thank you to the committee just to say about the construction traffic that comes through the estate I actually witnessed not so long ago myself sitting behind a big articulated lorry bringing in a JCB to redo our roads and he had problems to access off of the 350 coming on to Millbrook down to Buffalo Road he had to stop there and just freeze there stopping cars coming past his lorry eventually after about an hour it was moved also going on what Paul was saying about the hedgerows I've started to notice now that wildlife started come back to that field i.e. rabbits birds hedgehogs even deer which you know is very very nice to see for where we live and for this application to go through I totally disagree thank you okay thank you very much indeed we were hoping to have councillor king with us but sorry we've also got the parish council to speak as well that's councillor Jane Russ okay Westbury Town Council good morning I'm Jane Russ and I speak on behalf of Westbury Town Council in my capacity as chairman of the council and member of both its neighbourhood plan and highways planning and development committee westbury town council remains opposed to this application but accepts the principle of development on this site subject to strong conditions being imposed upon the developer to protect the amenity of neighbouring residents and maintain the integrity of our neighbourhood plan the town council and nearby residents remain concerned about the construction access for this development the recommendations of the report are for this matter to be largely deferred for later determination by officers as reserved matters or within the section 106 agreement however we believe that it is essential that safeguards for the residents of Millbrook are formalised in the section 106 agreement and reinforced within this committee's decision what the town council and its residents are seeking here is an explicit condition that no access whatsoever by HGVs will be permitted via the residential streets of Millbrook this must be reinforced by appropriate signage from the A350 and prohibition of site workers from parking within the residential streets and these provisions should be reinforced by the section 106 agreement residents of Millbrook wish to avoid a continuation of the stress and frustration they have endured over the last six years at the hands of the development of their estate as previously mentioned we would draw the committee's attention to the application for land to the west of Drydenham Lane where this committee refused consent as did the planning inspectorate on appeal where this committee on the grounds of damage to the amenity of existing residents in this instance the plan included with the papers in front of you is inaccurate as its depiction of the access from the A350 over Millbrook the route is actually extremely difficult to manoeuvre for light vehicular traffic let alone HGVs which are defined as of at least three and a half tons the contemplation by Millbrook residents that as soon as they are able to have peaceful enjoyment of their homes it will all begin again is a horrifying prospect to in bringing this application back to committee so speedily officers have relied upon further information provided by the applicant which I fear may not be entirely accurate in preparing our neighbourhood plan the site was thoroughly tested for development density and 30 was deemed to be the appropriate amount the emerging Wiltshire local plan didn't even deem the site as suitable for development at all at the April strategic planning committee members requested the number of dwellings we reduced from the original for this application 40 to 30 officers are now recommending raising this to 36 but this is based upon data interpretation provided by the applicant that we believe to be incorrect the applicant advised that housing density on neighbouring developments are 38 dwellings per hectare these calculations appear flawed the plan at item 3.1.3 of the report shows analysis of 38 dwellings per hectare at the mead known as Whitehorse view and bytham park known as Millbrook measured by dividing the number of dwellings consented by the site area that is woefully under calculated the correct site areas as stated in the original planning applications for these sites are 9.13 hectares at Whitehorse view and 11.18 hectares at Millbrook this gives the dwellings per hectare of 24.1 and 26.83 respectively a density for the application site even lower than the 30 houses repair requested by this committee thus the town council reaffirms this commitment to a maximum of 30 dwellings on the application site two short final points in light of the emerging local plan allocations the town council is of the opinion that the application site would serve a better purpose as a green lung at the heart of the larger development included in the local plan proposal for 260 houses to the east on the other side of coach road under emerging policy

1. Lastly the town council remains disturbed that following the applicants tree survey report in November 2022 roughly 75 percent of the parameter habitat was destroyed 75 percent in an extremely cynical action impacting the biodiversity of the site to compensate for this we would request a much higher biological net gain condition being applied to any future developments here thank you thank you very much indeed as we don't have the local member with this i'll go to the offices and see if you've got any responses or comments please and what's been said thank you chair and in response to the speed of the application coming back to committee and it follows the deferment of the previous application in april in which there was sort of a motion of three particular points which our officers have been seeking to sort of address and come back to and so we've sort of tried to take on board those comments that were raised by members and and to work with the applicant to sort of come up with um uh sort of solutions to those points that were addressed and in terms of the the quantum of the um the um proposed site again that we have been able to seek a reduction to um the um total number of dwellings on site and again this is an up to 36 figure and which again as kenny mentioned previously um at reserve matters we might see less housing coming forward on this site um but but we consider that the up to 36 figure to be acceptable given the um the densities of neighboring um um sites um in addition the um there was no sort of policy requirement for there to be a restriction of only 30 houses on this site and that hasn't come forward as part of um so the made neighborhood plan to restrict their um this site to only have 30 houses on it and um we consider that there being an up to 36 um number of dwellings on this site to be acceptable um in terms of um the um the head rows i appreciate that that some habitat has been lost um sort of over the the termination period of this planning application along that eastern um edge and all i would say is that the the application includes measures to um introduce additional um native planting and create a sort of a buffer which would be sort of used as a dark corridor along that eastern um edge there would be native planting going on um in that eastern side um with additional um sort of species ripped grassland um in order to help um encourage um and support sort of foraging and commuting bats and so we are looking to to provide um and secure sort of a buffer along that eastern edge and for for um ecological reasons um in terms of the um why this site hasn't been included um as part of the um sort of emerging local plan um i think at the time where we were looking at sites as part of the the emerging local plan um this um site hadn't been pulled from that neighborhood plan and i thought think that there was some thinking that this site was going forward as part of the neighborhood plan and therefore wasn't sort of included as part of the council's sort of own sort of search for sites and site allocations um in terms of the millbrook why it wasn't included as part of millbrook and my understanding it probably would be linked to sort of a land ownership issue and um at that time that site sort of wasn't seen to be included as part of the existing millbrook um development um with regard to the construction traffic um i don't know whether chris mans would want to um provide some sort of additional information in relation to that um but given the fact that this is outlined with um specific details relating to the particulars of the application not being um open for consideration at this stage and we sort of maintain that having a construction um traffic management plan condition being an acceptable way forward um and as already discussed that condition um details quite a lot of sort of specific requirements that we would expect any um future um transport management traffic management plan to come forward with and again that would be subject to sort of fresh assessment to see whether we we consider that to be acceptable and will include sort of details of where those routings will be and all um sort of a package of robust um measures to ensure that there wouldn't be sort of a detrimental impact on residents thanks verity just before we go to chris um chairman you would like to bring in chris mans from the highways team i think it's worthwhile just reflecting upon the draft neighborhood plan it did not set a threshold for 30 houses the actual policy said approximately 30 houses that means that an application can legitimately come in for more than 30 houses so there is no threshold there is no baseline for 30 houses for that site and we do need to be making decisions on a reasonable basis based on what the current position is that 30 house quantum was never examined didn't go to referendum so we do not know whether that was an acceptable number of houses for that site and i'll bring you back to an earlier point that verity quite rightly made that decisions need to be made based on the current mppf the current mppf is very clear that optimal decisions need to be made in terms of quantum of housing for sites it will look pretty bad on this council if we were to put forward a scheme on a site that is under delivering the government not only tarnishes the council because of poor delivery of housing and not delivering enough housing but equally say to the council you should not be supporting schemes that are inefficient use of that site at a time when we've got a housing land deficit we should be maximizing schemes 36 up to 36 houses for this site will not be overly dense it will not be a character um that's not representative in the local area and if we get 260 houses on the land to the east that will have a higher density than this site and the millbrook estate and betham park the point on the construction management plan i would just reiterate again that the applicants fully accept what officers have went back following that april deferment that there are other options other than going through the residential estate and that condition on page 92 i think it is 93 sets out a list of requirements that developer will need to provide to this council in terms of setting out how they envisage site operatives where they're going to park how they're going to access the site the number and type of vehicle all the rest of it this is a fairly standard robust condition that we impose on residential estates all across the county and one final point chair the mppf is also very clear that when a planning condition would suffice we should not also attach that requirement in a section 106 you should not have a burden in section 106 when you've got a planning condition covering the same issue so picking up the point that the town council have just made officers maintain that that condition serves the purpose that we identify as being required in terms of securing an appropriate level of detail at a later stage bear in mind this is outlined so it's not relevant for the assessment for the principle of development because as we've heard today this site has been identified by numerous parties as being acceptable in principle the issue on the quantum of housing officers are making a very clear point that up to 36 houses is acceptable it would be comparable to density in the local area and it would be less than the allocated site that's coming through in the local plan for the the next stage the point of construction traffic there is a follow-on process and um i don't know if you want to bring in christopher mans at this stage chair in terms of the highway position if we could yes please thanks chair um i think verity and kenny have covered the issues of construction traffic quite well in their assessments um what i will add is that mppf states that you can only refuse applications on highway grounds uh for two reasons one is a severe capacity issue and there is no evidence in this case that this development would lead to a severe capacity issue on the highway network and the second one which is more potentially relevant is an unacceptable impact to highway safety the construction traffic management plan would ultimately is designed to ensure that any safety implications of construction traffic would be mitigated um to ensure such an unacceptable impact would not occur i think it's important to highlight that um access for new development for construction traffic uh through um existing highway networks including residential estates is not an unusual um occurrence um there is inevitably an an impact to residents um in regards to that um but as from as a highway officer we would be looking at the the technical aspects of that and ensuring that um any safety issues can be mitigated that would include sweat path analysis i know that there's a lot of concern about the tight nature of some of the road uh roads within the millbrook estate and the bends within that um that is fully noted um we would be making sure that if access is sought via the millbrook estate um that we would make sure that any vehicles that the largest vehicles that would be expected to deliver to the site would have sweat path analysis undertaken across that full route to ensure that they could make those turns i think verity touched on the sort of other wider mitigation measures as well such as wheel cleaning um road cleaning um the potential for restricting parking um during delivery hours that wouldn't be i know some of the residents um uh made comments that it is wholly unacceptable to to you know to restrict car parking on the highway um throughout the construction phase and that wouldn't be the intention of the local highway authority we would be um managing that with the developer to ensure that um any parking restrictions were removed um outside hours of delivery time um as well as um avoided completely during certain phases of development where possible um i think that covers everything that um unless anyone wants me to speak on and i just make a point i mean i agree everything that chris has said but the second point of condition 12 requires the developer to come forward with a definitive routing plan that means that they have to show which route specific vehicles should be taking to access this site so chris has concentrated on the various technical aspects that his team would look at if millbrook estate roads were to be used but as we've said repeatedly there are other options coach road would not mean any vehicles going through millbrook estate that's why that's why we're saying that's what the developer would need to bring forward as a detailed plan with all the other aspects set out in condition 12 which would need proper investigation all the full assessments and ultimately a decision needs to be made in terms of what type of vehicle could potentially access the site through millbrook estate and i'm thinking the um site operatives generally turn up in their own vehicles not not hgvs that that would be the type of vehicle that i would envisage could go through millbrook estate the abnormal loads i i cannot um see why they would need to go through the millbrook estate there are other options available as i mentioned before but ultimately we've got a very robust condition the developer knows and have fully accepted i'm looking at verity they've not discounted or or challenged any condition that's in the agenda papers so they know what this this is being reported um by officers today and they've not raised any particular issue with them adhering to those requirements so i think with the combination of christopher verity myself i think that covers the construction traffic chair okay okay thank you very much indeed i must admit personally i dislike outline applications as i'm sure many members of this committee may but uh we have to deal with what's in front of us um so with that radio i open it for debate to the members of the committee ideally if the first person to speak could move a motion but i can quite understand if that might not be the case today but i'll throw it open to the floor i'll keep it simple and get get people discussing it so i move the officer's recommendation thank you that's when you say the officer's recommendation that's with the deletion of the word not from or worry condition 13 line one removed word not and the comments that were made about taking it back for regarding section 106 wordings and the concern about management committees for the officers to take back okay is there a seconder for that please okay thank you yes uh councillor please be thank you so that's proposed and seconded and he's on the table for debate council newbury chairman i i'm broadly in support of the recommendation but i am a bit puzzled that the construction traffic management stuff is still even at this you know after all these years and weeks of extra consideration it still seems to be so vague looking at paragraph 326 i haven't got the page number in front of me but this is the officer's report and it it says accessing the site from the north along coach road is not considered appropriate given the limitations that exist i think that must mean the um the bridge under the railway but it goes on officers consider that coach road could be considered an option for large construction vehicles and the required construction traffic management plan the applicant developer would be required to complete so we have officers saying that the access for large vehicles along coach road could be considered an option which presumably means that it's acceptable in general and yet here we are unable at this point to confirm that we're effectively saying we're not confirming that we're sort of leaving it as a something that we hope can be achieved between now and when the um permission is finally issued and i'm just puzzled can the highway officer tell us what is there about coach road which means that we can't now say construction heavy vehicles will be along coach road absolutely i mean coach road is a narrow single lane road um average width i would i would guesstimate around two and a half to three meters wide um depending on the size of vehicles used by the by the construction uh but for delivery that would determine what size vehicles would be appropriate for um access along coach road because of its narrow nature there's also a ditch on one side i believe and then soft highway verge as well um we would need further assessment about what size vehicles would also be would be suitable to access along coach road for those reasons um that would include sweat path analysis as i mentioned earlier in respects to access through the millbrook development and then also with regards to turning access into the site so um the likelihood is that there may be some potential hedgerow loss turning into the site to have large vehicles making that maneuver due to the narrow width of coach road um and all of that requires further assessment and it's something that we feel that we can adequately control via our planning condition but the width of coach road that you're mentioning is the width of the tarmac surface isn't it i mean coach road is you know it's a very old road um it's been there a long time it stretches from hedge to hedge i would have thought it's going to be more like i can't i'm not going to make a stab at it but it's considerably wider than just the two point something meters that you mentioned it's a single track road it's got almost no traffic on it it's got probably more pedestrians than it's got vehicles on it and i'm just i'm just completely puzzled that this late stage in the game we don't have nobody has been required to do the work to establish that coach road could be slightly improved to take the heavy traffic is is that not something that could have been done as we mentioned i feel that it's something that could be adequately conditioned um the the width outside of the tarmac area of coach road is not significant it's maybe half a meter on either side um with regards to hedgerow impact and also um well can we look at it on the map can we have an overhead showing us the width of it so i was just seeing if i've got any more photographs from coach road that sort of show it um sorry but that that's the sort of best i've got um just sort of showing it that i don't sort of have any better um pictures or images i don't think of it could we see it on the map i mean it's it's the it's the bit of coach road at the south end it's between bitum park which is the distributor road and the entrance to the site so that that's yep there we are so that's coach road along the back and can we zero in on that a bit and compare it with the other roads in the neighborhood so i don't think i can um zoom in on that map sorry it would seem that we can't christopher chancellor newby okay but i mean there we are in paragraph three i gave the number of it officers saying it could be considered an option and i'm just puzzled that we haven't been able to go firmer and say that's where it's going response chair is that we do not know um i mean obviously this isn't the only potentially constrained site in the county where a developer will have to come up with information on what size of vehicle they will be using to bring deliveries to the site but the point that chris was making is that we rely upon a developer to pay for to do the certain swept path analysis we shouldn't be doing that for a developer um so that's where that condition also requires a developer to do that investigative investigative work to assess if another route is going to be used for construction vehicles which could well be the case here we need to know what vehicles are going to use that road and if they are larger vehicles to take abnormal loads will that create an issue for the the hedge to hedge verge to verge width of coach road until we know the vehicle size and what um they would be bringing along that route it's difficult for officers to make a judgment call at this stage we are saying that coach road is there it's adoptable it's available we just need to know the detail from the developer what vehicles would you be using to make sure that they're not interfering with the amenities of the residents of millbrook mistake it's a standard position we've been in many many times across the county where we are saying for outline is a principal issue that's up for debate ultimately and the construction routing all the details relating to construction vehicles the timing the number and size and all the rest of it is a condition requirement um it's not something we're introducing as a new issue it's it's a standard requirement this council imposes upon many developers across the county and it's something that we're highways team getting engaged with on a regular basis thank you chair okay i mean i'm reasonably hopeful that this is this is doable but i'm a bit puzzled that nobody seems to ask that question yet is that the position before this item came to the april committee um we we made it quite clear to the developer that there would be some key issues that we envisaged that they would have to um address we obviously assumed that they would be coming to committee and it's very unfortunate that on two occasions they've not been able to come along so we're not speaking for a developer we're just setting out the facts in terms of what we've attempted to do on behalf of and we've um made all attempts possible to get them to accept that construction vehicle construction vehicles should not solely be using the millbrook estate and from what verity has told me they accept that is the position what we now need to know is what vehicles will they be using along alternative routes we need to know the routes we need to know what vehicles will use which route and as we've heard today that if if there's alternative routes then that needs to be signed and it needs to be subject to an agreement that they will be making sure and managing operations on site with a bank's person that's the right term i think it is um so that all site operatives follow that route and as i've said we went down that um same process for the urban extension councilor newbury at warminster and you may may recall the very first phase had to go through st andrews road and the residents there were very alarmed that the the construction vehicles would only go through their estate and we said well unfortunately that is the only route for that first part because there is no nothing else available in this case there are other alternative routes and there is a material difference between this application and the drynam lane appeal decision because we've got the case here where we know there's land to the east we've got an adoptable road coach road that's to the west of this sorry to the east of the site and it's over to the developer if this application is endorsed to to come forward with a robust routing plan full details of all the construction relating information that we need there's nothing in that condition that's not reasonable and that is a key element of all planning conditions um so so we are we are fully um comfortable with the recommendation and that the condition will be adhered to thank you chair okay thank you so far i think a very brief synopsis of that is that this receive permission today it still couldn't go ahead until the planning officers are content with how they're going to get access to the site so not saying yes you can get there we're saying yes you've got to agree with the officers before you do anything okay thank you and yeah indeed cancer sorry smith thank you yeah um just stepping back and looking at the overall scheme again um i think as a council would find it very difficult to defend the principle of development on this particular site given the um the lack of the neighborhood plan um given the sort of the sort of the nppf sort of screaming at us that we need to build houses and there seems to be very little defense uh for us particularly in a location like this so i do think we taking council newberry's point you know we really do need to be thinking about mitigating the impact on residents of that state and i'm just wondering whether you know i totally get that the condition for a construction uh management plan is is is there is where beefing it up and explicitly saying we do not want construction traffic through that estate is that something that we can say at this stage but i would say that until we know the type of vehicle and the size of vehicle i don't think it would be reasonable to be it's very explicit to say no construction vehicle because you you get small lorries that will have no impact on that local estate route because you'll have larger vehicles using that estate route that access existing houses or um developments that are taking place on individual householders that's something else to bear in mind in terms of enforceability if you've got a property on that estate that's getting some extension work done you will have other construction vehicles accessing that particular property i think it comes down to level of detail the reasonableness of that condition and officers as i've said before we deal with this on a regular basis for all estates all schemes and we do rigidly require developers to come forward with that level of information i do accept that the local local residents are very concerned about potential immunity issues loss of potential on-street parking children playing in the streets that is very material and it's taken into account we've certainly factored in verity and i before the report was finalized the construction traffic management plan is a very robust document if it's done properly if it's not done properly officers will not be supporting it as simple as that and as councillor clark rightly said that if a developer submits a misleading or deficient plan they won't be they won't be developing the site because they need to get that approved before any works commence on site thank you chair chair do you mind if i just add to that i'll just go on to that point again um it's just that we have added a note um to the construction um traffic management plan a condition to again just highlight the fact that we do expect them to be looking at all possible alternative routes um so again we are sort of expecting as kenny's already sort of made reference to um sort of a full kind of comprehensive um sort of assessment of what options are available why maybe some have been discounted and what routes they are actually looking to use so again that has we have sort of added a note onto that condition of expecting there to be an assessment of of all or you know potential um construction traffic routes to to gain access to the site okay thank you councillor white thank you andrew um just following on from that have um officers experienced any other previous situations where they've made an absolute condition um is that no deliver access cannot be through a residential before getting details of what size of vehicle and how much plant is going to be has that ever happened in the past to be honest no so um we obviously the conditions do get reworded re um to use a previous phrase beefed up from time to time so that we're more rigid in terms of what the councils require so there may well be historic cases where a condition didn't actually meet the true purpose of what was required but we we we will be expecting because we've had that conversation with this developer we've made it very clear what our expectations and what we've heard from the committee in april so we fully expect um a level of detail and full surveys of alternative routes to um avoid the larger vehicles going through this day the abnormal loads going through this day and um seeing what comes through in terms of the types of vehicles size of the vehicles the number of vehicles each day would service this development um just one other point i mean of course you're the experts in this area but the size of vehicle will not affect the amount of materials that's going to have to be delivered to a site so arguably some of the objections raised about safety and parking are not going to be significantly impacted by the size of vehicle of course they wouldn't want a big articulated trucks but if you have smaller you know the applicant provides you with detail that they're going to produce them all on scooters i don't know sorry i'm not being facetious um the volume of material and equipment is still going to be the same so i don't still don't quite understand why we can't make it a condition it now that it doesn't go through that residential area but then i know nothing position we're in is that the highways team have made it quite clear that the estate is available for vehicles we do not know the size of the vehicle there are alternatives to the estate so our position quite rightly to avoid local residents experiencing the worst of the vehicles is that we are encouraging the use of coach road as a developer they will want to use the quickest route the route that doesn't involve hazards and as we've heard from local residents if they're in if their selected vehicles are going to encounter height bends parked cars as opposed to coach road which will have no vehicles for the vast majority of time then we would we would expect that they would be identifying that as the route okay just a question thank you most effective thank you canister newbury thank you chairman i think the crunch question kenny is can we or can we not impose the condition to say no vehicles above a certain size to go through the residential streets my instinct is saying no at this stage because we we are saying in that condition quite clearly that it's over to you developer to show us how you envisage this site being developed to try and enforce a condition when that road is also used by other properties that may well be getting extensions we don't want to be land ending up with an enforcement situation where we think vehicles are accessing the site when they're not and they're actually accessing a different development within the estate we we want to know from the developer what size of vehicles would you be using and what um route would those vehicles be taking to say that this development can only take place by putting an exclusion for certain types of vehicles i don't think that would meet the tests of a reasonable condition i think the other way around it is to put the um all in the developers court to say how are you going to develop this site and what vehicles are you going to be using and then we can look at the routes that would be most appropriate for those vehicles with um full consultation with the highways team and the developer looking at sweat path analysis widths of all the roads that would be identifying including coach road and as well a potential joint college route through that land that's coming forward in our new local plan i think the combination of those would mean that a condition prohibiting all hgb traffic through the estate would be unenforceable and unreasonable what would be the downside of us putting such a condition i mean the the applicant would then have to decide whether whether they accepted it or not but if they did accept it no problem if they didn't accept it they could appeal against it couldn't they have to decide whether they would be the case in the case in the case and the case in the case thank you understand the legal officer would like to say something just just to add to kenny's comments about imposing a condition nonetheless kenny's quite right that the the applicant could and i suspect would appeal against such condition uh and it seems to me highly unlikely that an inspector on appeal would impose such condition he would he would impose the condition that we are currently proposing to impose okay thank you i think that the officers have certainly got the the gist from this committee that uh access to the site is of major importance against agreement thank you chair um i take that point the fact is though we don't know whether the condition would be unreasonable or not we haven't tested it and the issue that we faced last time when we looked at this was that and i am disappointed the developer isn't here i think that's rude frankly i have refused to if you remember two years ago i did refuse to listen to a case because the developer didn't turn up i think the least they could do is give us the courtesy of coming along to the meetings i'm hugely disappointed they haven't done that i know i'll probably i was probably stretching the point two years ago but i still got away with it nonetheless the issue is that coach road came up last time it was mentioned by a number of members of the committee and they had every opportunity to test this and to do the homework on this before this came back to committee today and as i see it they failed to do so and so the onus in my view isn't on the committee to make a decision over whether we think it's right or not they they're the ones need to justify it they need to legitimize what it is that they're putting forward so i have to say i'm enormously disappointed that they haven't looked at this um i do know this piece i have taken the opportunity to be out to go out there i think it's wholly unreasonable and untenable to expect any construction traffic to come down to the residential area and we did this to death back in april and i think that's exactly why we wanted them to look at coach road and i wanted a rather more definitive response than we have today to whether coach road is workable or not i'm i am disappointed on that's what i have to say um so on the back of what council greenman has just mentioned i think there is the option here for a further update or beefing up of the note that's attached to the condition to the effect that if the developer comes forward with the requisite information um that the route through the millbrook estate is only considered if the developer can convince the council that there's no other option available so that would put a further burden on the developer to provide full details to the council that coach road isn't available can't be used for the vehicles that they're using there's no route for the haulage route through the land to the east or anything anywhere else that um may be available ultimately so the note could be added to and perhaps the paragraph's a bit long as it is we might need to break it up um but we could add that further weight to that requirement so the developer knows the hierarchy or the sequential approach in terms of what this council expects them to do thank you for that kenny i appreciate that i just wanted to come back on that when you mentioned earlier quite correctly the issue in warminster where the first phase did go down through the residential but of course as you also pointed out and i do remember that case well they had no choice and the development we're aware of that the developer did look into that it appears to all intents and purposes that developer hasn't looked at that at all as yet that's why i'm disappointed that we're in the position that we're at because they they do have an option they just haven't explored it we don't know that they've not looked at it they're just saying that that is a follow-up requirement that they are they are fully committed to doing they know that this committee and officers are steering them towards that requirement i wouldn't say they've not looked at it they've certainly came back and said at this particular stage the agreements with the land to the east or the landowners to the east isn't um at such an advanced stage where they can agree to a haulage road um option but that might change as i mentioned before if that becomes an adopted site and we get an application and i say application i know there's a communication actually already in um for part of the site but i don't know whether there's more than one landowner and again it comes back to the requirements this is something the developer needs to do and provide the evidence to this council it's not something we should be trying to engineer a decision a solution for they have to provide the evidence to us to satisfy this council that their scheme is going to be acceptable for construction traffic so with the assistance of nigel um i'm i'm putting a a a further um addition as a recommendation in that the condition condition 12 30 is added to to the extent that the developer will also be obligated to um submit to the council full evidence that there are no other options available other than the route that they take or put forward so if they come back with just one route and that route is only through the millbrook estate we would expect all the evidence possible to show that that is the only option available sitting here today we know coach road is available thank you so how could that be acceptable to you if the proposal and seconder we're happy with that to be added in no i want i want to listen to whatever else is going to say yeah i'm still okay well clark i mean i certainly welcome that okay well i'll go to the proposal and seconder would you be happy for that right okay so that's included in the substantive motion now so how have you got anything else you wish to say about it um christopher you have spoken twice already but i know but i've got some new information chairman i've just checked online the 1936 25 inch ordinate survey amount of westbury and what it shows is coach road having pretty much the same width as all the other streets in the town so that suggests to me that it could be widened uh within its boundaries to provide as as much width as you needed now that triggers the thought in my mind if we did need the developer to improve coach road you know within its existing width so that it could be used for construction traffic would we need some kind of a condition uh to achieve the improvement of coach road and if we did how would we cover that now what are you chris i think that would be um included within the construction traffic management plan that if they're proposing access via coach road and that it would require additional measures to ensure that access could be um could be maintained safely and that included a widening of coach road then we can agree the parameters of that and the design of that as part of the construction traffic management plan we would expect details to be submitted to that extent as part of okay that's a good answer thank you okay thank you again councillor griffin uh thank you chair um coming to this point about coach road uh it's been mentioned a few times during this meeting that it's currently unadopted um if it were to be adopted and widening work was required um it's about 250 meters from the southern end of it to the um part of the site um who would bear the cost of widening works in that case would that be for the developer or would it be for the council i'm assuming it would be the developer but i don't know if chris has got anything else to add on to that yeah absolutely we'd expect the developer to uh to bear the costs of any of any improvements required for construction traffic yeah okay thank you i think that's everybody has spoken that wishes to so cancer palman she was a proposer if you wish to sum up i don't think there's anything additional to to say really i think we've been through this but it is a compromise uh as all these uh applications end up being okay thank you with that then we'll go to the vote cast those in favor please show and any against and any abstentions in that case that motion is carried so thank you very much indeed for coming along and i'm sure the officers are well aware of the concern of this committee with regards to the highways um thank you everybody for attending and just to remind you the next meeting of this committee will be on the 1st of july so thank you much indeed same place same time oh absolutely thank you