Minutes for the Planning, Transport Development and Highways Committee – 30th January 2025

24/100. Public recess.

3 members of public (mop) and Ward Cllr Hopkins.

A member of the public read a statement to the council, with key points summarised below.

At a previous meeting Chisledon Parish Council (CPC) voted to object to the HH application with little detailed discussion about what HH would need to do to gain support for their application. A consultant was hired to draft a letter from CPC to SBC and the letter was approved somehow by the committee. If SBC need to formally reconsult, will a further consultant’s letter be required, at what cost, and with what procedure for approval by CPC? An FOI request was submitted to find out what procedure was followed by the Planning Committee for review and approval of the consultant’s letter to SBC outside of planning committee meetings. The mop commented this is a lack of transparency. Another aim of the FOI is to see what improvements could be made for future submissions to ensure transparency and avoid any unnecessary redrafting costs. Why were Cllrs Kearsey and Jefferies suggested to attend the SBC meeting? (agenda item 12). He asked the committee to select one in favour and one not in favour, to give fair representation of parishioners both for and against. The last meeting minutes (Nov 24) fail to record the lengthy discussion during public recess. The Clerk previously advised the minutes are not a verbatim record, but he thinks important issues should be recorded and this is an important issue. He asks the committee not to approve the minutes without the following additions: During the lengthy discussions at the start, he questioned the procedure used to approve the consultant’s letter and said he thought it was unsatisfactory. Ex-Cllr Howlett (now resigned) also questioned the procedure and said he was not copied in on emails. In contrast to ex-Cllr Howlett’s account, the Chair said all emails were shared with all Cllrs.

The second mop highlighted an area of land to the rear of Staddlestones, Butts Road currently has planning permission for stables. Two applications for building a house have been rejected, building work has been going on for the ‘stable’ but the structure looks more like a residence than a stable. The mop would like support from CPC as he believes the planning rules are being broken. SBC replied to mop saying the inspector visit stated the structure was a stable. Since then retrospective planning permission has been sought. The mop stated there are lots of discrepancies between the current structure and original planning permission.

The third mop stated his background is a Town Planner with 35 years’ experience. He wants clarity on CPC’s consultation response (in relation to the HH application). Concerned it does not provide a good response which reflects the comments made by a number of people at the Sept CPC meeting or those made on SBC’s website by residents. He thinks it’s written in a manner that gives HH a way out, to meet items listed by CPC and therefore claim they have CPC support. The mop would like to know if Andrea Pellegram (AP) wrote the response, having provided advice on how that response should be framed, based on expectation of national policy for development in Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) areas in exceptional circumstances. What is being portrayed in the CPC response is an itemisation of what CPC will consider to be exceptional circumstances and frankly it’s wrong. The exceptional circumstances being portrayed would not be considered exceptional circumstances. Some elements (better footpath links, children’s play areas etc) are expectations from policy anyway, so they shouldn’t be exceptional circumstances. In addition, the main point, which is the affordable housing element, CPC doesn’t have any evidence of affordable housing need sufficient to be considered exceptional circumstances. Not sure if this guidance came from AP or CPC. Also wants to comment on the underlying expectation that Chiseldon Parish is going to be under pressure for housing development so it needs to take its ‘share’ and if it takes a bit of this share, it will help stop other developments elsewhere in the parish. That principle is an utterly flawed concept and it’s got no basis from a planning point of view. It might have a basis from a political point of view, but not from planning. The mop asked if he could assist as a resident and would be happy to do so. He is not a supporter of this development at all, he thinks it’s entirely flawed both in principle and in detail and hopes SBC planners are having a very long conversation with the applicants and anticipate HH will make amendments. His concern is HH will tweak items within the scheme to align with items in the CPC response, and then they will say it aligns with CPC.

The mop stated the AONB covers the whole village and that’s the designation that needs to be respected. People live and move here on the basis it is part of AONB and that it should carry weight, which is determined by national planning policy. There may way be a need for more housing and change through population, but it needs more evidence than local school capacity vacancies, as there are a number of reasons that could affect that particular issue. There is a national housing need, but that need is meant to be managed and delivered within districts. Within that, the recognition of AONB, what it is, why it is, and the importance of it, is important. Undermining that AONB through planning applications, the whole approach is to play the system and we need to be mindful of that.

In reply to the question ‘where would you say we could have development in the village and presumably if Home Close wasn’t built yet, would you say it shouldn’t be built?’, the mop replied not necessarily. It should go through the planning process where it has quite a bit of gestation, with lots of community input, tested at examination by a planning inspector, it sits alongside all the other policy considerations and there is a whole balance and it’s done by the district council. The big picture is determined outside of the planning application, so you can’t say yes or no to that, but AONB is there for a reason. Cllr Hinton commented it would have been useful to hear back from the AONB rep about this application but noted they didn’t respond. The mop stated he believes planners at SBC shouldn’t be making a recommendation until they get a response from AONB.

24/101. List of apologies with reason given and approval of those apologies.

Cllr Jackson has a work commitment.

A proposal was made to approve the apologies given. The proposal was seconded and all Cllrs were in favour.

24/102. Declarations of Interest. Cllr Ford declared an interest in the agenda item for MOT testing facilities at Bush House as he rents a unit on that site.

24/103. Approval of minutes from 28th November 24. No changes

A proposal was made to approve these minutes as an accurate reflection of the meeting. The proposal was seconded and the majority of Cllrs were in favour. 1 abstained.

24/104. Action points from previous meeting. (Completed items in italics)

Clerk 24/87. Contact the estate about hedge cutting on Hodson Road. Done. Estate said the section in question was not theirs.  Contacted the owner they suggested who said it was not theirs either.  No further leads.

Clerk 24/88. Add an agenda item to the relevant meeting to discuss the current situation with the Rec hall. Done. Will be on Feb Full Council agenda as Jan was inquorate.

Clerk 24/91. Email SBC planner and Ward Cllrs ref SBC planning meeting where HH application will be vote on. Done.  SBC have assured us we will get 7 days notice of when the meeting is.

Clerk 24/91. Ask WC Hopkins about timeline for applications going to Gov Inspectorate. Done. He replied and I had sent the info on to you.

Clerk 24/92. Ask W.Cllrs to log TRO process with SBC for crossing on New Road Asked them and chased them – no response at all as of today. Update at meeting: Cllr Hopkins advised at the meeting there are capacity issues within Highways at SBC and a long waiting list of jobs. This is an item that he will continue to raise and push at the appropriate time when they’ve got the capacity.

Clerk 24/93. Ask W.Cllrs to log TRO process with SBC for speed reduction on Hodson Road. Updates same as item 24/92.

Clerk 24/94. Contact WPC ref joint working on gateways sign at Brimble Hill. Done.  Nothing definite happening at WPC yet but will add to agenda that we are interested in working together.  

Clerk 24/94. Contact Signway Supplies to ask for quotes on gateway signs for the parish. Done. On 30th Jan agenda to progress

Clerk 24/96. Chase solicitor draft email for estate. Chased twice. No response yet.  I will contact their head office in a couple of days to see if this gets action.

Clerk 24/98. Add to Finance agenda the proposal for an extra payment to Andrea Pellegram Ltd. Done. Finance agreed to pay £650.00 further.

Clerk 24/99. Add Cllr requested items to relevant agendas and send them the Cllr request form. Done.

24/105. PLANNING. Vote on Cllrs to attend the SBC planning meeting when S/OUT/24/0982 is on the agenda. To determine the main points to be raised by representatives of CPC. Cllrs Kearsey and Jefferies suggested.

The statement to be read will be decided at a future meeting.

Cllr Hinton highlighted Cllr Kearsey is Chairman of the Council and incredibly knowledgeable. Also that Cllr Jefferies was a ward Cllr, on planning at SBC and Chair of this Planning Committee and stated it’s fairly straightforward to him why these 2 names were suggested. Other Cllrs agreed.

Cllr Kearsey stated they will represent the Council but reiterated members of the public are welcome to attend and speak on their own behalf.

Cllr Jefferies stated she is not in favour of the development as it stands.

A proposal was made to approve Cllrs Kearsey and Jefferies to attend the SBC planning meeting when S/OUT/24/0982 is on the agenda. The proposal was seconded and all Cllrs were in favour.

2 members of the public leave at 20:08

24/106. PLANNING. Discussion and vote on S/24/1412. Erection of a steel frame building to house MOT testing facilities. Bush House Unit 6, Marlborough Road Chiseldon Swindon SN4 0HS.

Whilst Cllrs agreed an MOT site in the area would be good for the parish as there is not one here already, there were lots of concerns raised about the lack of space and parking in the area currently, it’s very cramped and congested, which already causes issues for other businesses/users of the site.

A proposal was made to support this application on the basis that sufficiently more parking spaces are included in the plan, to properly cover the requirement of an MOT test centre and Cllrs would like to see a proper plan of the site. The proposal was seconded and the majority of Cllrs were in favour. Cllr Ford abstained from voting.

24/107. PLANNING. Discussion and vote on S/HOU/24/1518. Erection of garden store. Gatekeepers Lodge, 1 Mansion Drive, Swindon SN4 0GA.

A proposal was made to support this application. The proposal was seconded and all Cllrs were in favour.

24/108. PLANNING. Discussion and vote on S/24/1485. Erection of 2 no. adjoining stables, tackroom and haystore (Variation of Condition 6 – Approved Plans from Planning Permission S/12/1756 part retrospective)

Land To Rear Of Staddlestones, Butts Road, Chiseldon Swindon SN4 0NN.

Cllr Kearsey commented they should reinstate the original planning permission for the stable and the structure should be built from wood/sleepers. Cllr Jefferies stated this item/structure should be watched very carefully by Chiseldon Parish Council and we need to keep the enforcement officers informed of any further developments. She noted this has been going on a long time and is concerned in the passage of time, the structure will continue to develop and remain on the site without planning permission.

A proposal was made to object to this application with the comments above noted. The proposal was seconded and all Cllrs were in favour.

24/109. PLANNING. Discussion and vote on S/AMEND/24/1505. Non material amendment to previous approval S/17/0128 regarding the demolition of the pavilions, change of use of offices and ancillary buildings to 25no. apartments/dwellings, erection of 52no. dwellings, construction of new access and associated works. 2 The Coach House,2 Cardeville, Burderop Park, Swindon.

A proposal was made to vote no comment in regard to this application. The proposal was seconded and the majority of Cllrs were in favour.

24/110. PLANNING. Discussion & vote on any planning applications received from Swindon Borough Council after the agenda is published.  Published on the council’s Facebook page and on the council’s website.  There were none.

24/111. PLANNING. To provide any update on S/HOU/24/0982 land at Hodson Road if SBC have held their Planning meeting.

SBC have not yet held a planning meeting where this application was on the agenda yet, but have assured us we will get 7 days’ notice of the meeting date to ensure CPC have representation at the meeting.

24/112. HIGHWAYS. Review any new information to add Parish Gateways to main routes into the Parish. Review the questions supplied by Signway Supplies and provide responses.

Cllrs requested signs similar to South Swindon PC (SSPC) in size and appearance. Cllr Hopkins suggested asking Jake from SSPC to get their sign project costs etc. Intended for all entry points into the parish (7, Brimble Hill, motorway bridge at Hodson, motorway bridge at junction 15, Badbury, Ridgeway Road (from Liddington direction), Marlborough Road, Draycot Foliat. SSPC used SBC contractor. Poles needed as appropriate.

24/113. HIGHWAYS. Review options for any work to protect/improve grass verges that have been driven over.

Cllr Stevens highlighted the verge on the corner of Castle View Road/New Road has been terribly damaged for a number of years. Issues with traffic including large buses trying to pass with cars parked on both sides.

A proposal was made to obtain 3 quotes for both concrete and bollards on the verge, at the corner of Castle View Road/New Road. The proposal was seconded and all Cllrs were in favour.

24/114. HIGHWAYS. To approve costs of around £1,000.00 for the TRO that is required for the Draycot Foliat layby and speed limit changes.

A proposal was made to approve around £1,000.00 for the TRO that is required for the Draycot Foliat layby and speed limit changes, with funds to come from DF layby parking allocated reserves. The proposal was seconded and all Cllrs were in favour.

24/115. TRANSPORT. No items

24/116. Rec Ground improvement. To receive any update on the comms with the estate after the Clerks call with RWK Goodman on the “Heads of Terms” for the lease.

Clerk will chase Solicitor head office if no further update received.

24/117. Rec Ground improvement. To review and vote on costs of £500 to update the costings for the new rec ground building works.

Cllr Jefferies questioned why funds should be spent to update this, when costs could change again in future.

A proposal was made to refer to the next Full Council meeting. The proposal was seconded and all Cllrs were in favour.

24/118. Neighbourhood Plan.  Due date for start of Reg 16 is Fri 13th December for 8 weeks. General discussion point only if required. Relevant publicity has been carried out.

Cllrs noted.

24/119. Neighbourhood Plan.  To vote to delegate powers to the Clerk to professionally print 3 copies of the full Regulation 16 documents if needed as we have a commitment to provide them to the public if they ask us.  To come from the NHP council allocated funds.

A proposal was made to approve delegated powers to the Clerk to professionally print 3 copies of the full Regulation 16 documents. The proposal was seconded and all Cllrs were in favour.

24/120. Items for the next agenda.

• Cllr Rawlings requested an item to discuss issues with farmers vehicles driving up on verges instead of sticking the roads and what can be done to prevent it
•  Cllr Ford requested an item about flooding issues and impact on road safety especially at night on the Ridgeway Road, between Draycot Road and the A346
•  Cllr Turley requested an item to discuss what can be done to prevent people driving on Castle View Green

Meeting closed at 20:54

ACTION POINTS

Clerk 24/92. Ask W.Cllrs to log TRO process with SBC for crossing on New Road Asked them and chased them – no response at all as of today. Update at meeting: Cllr Hopkins advised at the meeting there are capacity issues within Highways at SBC and a long waiting list of jobs. This is an item that he will continue to raise and push at the appropriate time when they’ve got the capacity.

Clerk 24/93. Ask W.Cllrs to log TRO process with SBC for speed reduction on Hodson Road. Updates same as item 24/92.

Clerk 24/96. Chase solicitor draft email for estate. Chased twice. No response yet.  I will contact their head office in a couple of days to see if this gets action.

Clerk 24/105. Prepare statement (to be read at SBC meeting) for approval at the next planning meeting.

Clerk 24/112. Ask Jake at SSPC for their signs project costs and any info they can supply related to the signs spec, dimensions etc.

Clerk 24/113. Get 3 quotes for concrete and 3 quotes for bollards to be installed on the verge, on the corner of Castle View Road/New Road T junction.

Clerk 24/114. Initiate process for TRO that is required for the Draycot Foliat layby and speed limit changes.

Clerk 24/117. Add item to review and vote on costs of £500 to update the costings for the new rec ground building works to the next full council agenda.

Clerk 24/119. Arrange printing of 3 copies of the full Regulation 16 documents for members of the public.

Clerk 24/120. Send Cllrs Rawlings, Ford and Turley agenda request forms.

List of CPC planning application consultee votes

(2023 data removed – see old minutes for details)