17/09. Vote in new Committee Chair.

 Cllr Brady nominated herself for the role of Chair, and Cllr David Hill nominated Cllr Rawlings.

A vote by show of hands was taken.

Cllr Brady received 2 votes and Cllr Rawlings received 3 votes.  Cllr Rawlings was therefore voted in as the new Committee Chair.

17/10. Vote in new Committee Vice Chair

 Cllr West nominated Cllr Brady as new Vice Chair.  There were no other nominations.

Cllr Beaumont seconded this and all Cllrs were in favour.  Cllr Brady was therefore voted in as the new Committee Vice Chair.

17/11.  Declarations of Interest.

Cllr Henderson and Cllr Hill cannot discuss or vote on the New Road proposed development due to their close location to the development site.

17/12.  Public recess.

Questions were raised by the public for Impact Planning Services or CPC to answer during their presentation:

Will they disclose who the developer is?

Is there an AONB representative available who can provide information from their organisation?

Why is this proposal going ahead when the last one wasn’t successful?

A question to the Parish Council: Is SBC meeting their affordable housing supply? Is there any information on how SBC have met their targets?   Cllr Brady advised that if you go to www.swindon.gov.uk there is information and relevant documents on there about SBC strategy for affordable housing.  This has a caveat that it is dependent on the challenges faced.

It was noted that a similar development in Wroughton went ahead in an area of AONB. It went to appeal and was granted as SBC was behind on their affordable housing levels.

David Hill as a member of the public reminded Cllrs that the old plans for this site were rejected as they were outside of the village “envelope”. Also the overlook to and from Liddington Castle is within the AONB.  If a small development happens in this field there is a chance that other developers will come along and extend the building area.

The local services and local roads are under pressure anyway.

The developer should look at the last inspectors report, it shows clearly the reasons why the development shouldn’t occur.

As the parish boundaries have changed and Badbury Park is no longer part of the parish, the need for social housing has changed.

Cllr Brady advised at this point that the views need to be balanced as no official application has been made yet.

17/13.  Minutes of meeting of 3rd April 2017

No changes

The minutes of the meeting held on 3rd April 2017 were then proposed by Cllr Brady, seconded by Cllr Hill and all those at the meeting were in favour.

17/14 Matters arising and action points

 Matters arising:

  • Page 1 17/04. Nothing further has happened with this from SBC as its gone back to the developers.
  •  Page 2 17/06Butts Road development. The owner has advised that delivery vehicles will reverse down Butts Road and not attempt the tight corner. Neighbours are still concerned. As the building is being knocked down, all rubbish will need to be removed. Lorries can’t travel down the High Street into Station Road.
  • Page 3 Nothing.

17/15. Presentation and Q&A from Impact Planning Services in regards to proposed New Road development.

Present were:

Peter Finlayson:  Managing Director of PFA Consulting.
Christopher Hancox: Director of Urban Perspective Studio Ltd.
Ben Seward: Environmental Policy and Implementation – Impact Planning Services Ltd.
Robert Gillespie: Managing Director – Impact Planning Services Ltd.

Robert Gillespie:

Background was presented as to why the plans are in place; they are working with local government policy on the 5 year housing plan. SBC doesn’t have an adequate supply.

The most recent plan was adopted in March 2015 and is already out of date as it relies on large sites to deliver housing.  This is hampered by a lack of funds to provide the infrastruture to these large sites such as NEV, Kingsdown and Wichelstowe.

The SBC plan is accepting small proportional growth which includes proportional growth within AONB. Normally under 5% expansion within a settlement.

The scale of this will not swamp the village in factual terms

In terms of “why now?”  The SBC local plan wasn’t adopted earlier; there was no vision for proportional growth in Chiseldon in the old plan.

There are 12 affordable houses planning in this development. They expect that 40 houses will produce 9/10 primary aged kids, and 6/7 secondary aged. There is local school capacity for this.

Within a 3 mile radius there are 10 Dr surgeries, 9 say they have vacancies.

When the pre-application is submitted to SBC, SBC will consult with Highways, Environment, Drainage, Flood Risk, Agricultural etc which the developers have already done as well.

Chris Hancox then presented a number of diagrams to the meeting, including the access to the site, considering the neighbours, parking areas for allotment parking, keeping and protecting the footpath.

The houses will be 1 to 5 bed houses on large plots. They will protect the privacy of existing homes by keeping a soft border on New Road.

They will have a balancing pond for ground water, and a play area if SBC approve it.

Castlewood Investments (an American Company) own the land and are working with Cowley Brothers who are the developers.

Peter Finlayson:

Highways and Drainage have been discussed with Highways England and SBC.

Highways agreed that a threshold of 50 dwellings would be within the limits to not affect J15 M4.

There would be 2 points of access – New Road and Ridgeway Road

40 houses would produce approx. 20 vehicle movements in peak hours

New Road has 600 vehicle movements in peak hours.

Public questions were then addressed:

Question – how do the public go about getting this scheme stopped?

Cllr Brady advised that when the formal plans are submitted the PC will make sure a public consultation is held to let people have their views.

The public can also make comment on the SBC website on the planning application.

David Hill asked about how affordable housing is allocated to people.  The developer will have to work with the guidelines of SBC.  People would need to register with the Housing Association and work within their criteria.

Names are usually drawn from Council waiting list and Housing Association lists.

Q: Isn’t it true that this parcel of land is the only privately owned area of land where the developer is willing to build on it? What other areas have been looked at?

The only infill sites within the settlement boundary are small.  They looked for the best site with ease for traffic and walking to the village centre.  The landowner will not argue that they cannot afford social housing; they want to provide this for the area.

Q: Wouldn’t Chiseldon Camp be a better site?

Unfortunately this area was not shown on the local plan as being a potential site.

Cllr Brady advised that SBC representatives would be invited to a meeting to understand their perspective.

Q: When will the pre-application be submitted?

It will be by the end of June.  It should also be noted that the developer owns land to the west of this site.

If the pre-application brings up no issues then the outline plans might be put in late summer 2017.

They will also have another public meeting to discuss the plans further.

The representatives from Impact Planning Services then left the meeting at 20.25

17/16. Presentation from Ian Hepburn from the North Wessex Downs AONB

Ian firstly commented that SBC do not always share pre-planning applications with the AONB.

SBC usually treat this as confidential and AONB are not statutory advisors such as Highways.

Once a formal submission is made the AONB will be invited to comment.

The AONB’s primary function is to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of an area, and improve the function and look of the landscape.

Their view carries great weight on a planning application.

The local authority planning committee will make the initial decision on the application.

It can be reported to the Secretary of State who will appoint a planning inspector.  Or ask the AONB to ask for the National Casework of the Planning Inspectorate to be called in.

There has to be more than just local conditions to contest an application.

Cllr Brady asked if Ian can provide help and guidance for Parishes when it comes to any objection to an application. For example when the New Road application is put in, we need to understand the facts from the previous objection.

We also need to understand from SBC the rationale for their strategic site development.

Ian Hepburn left the meeting at 21.00

The Parish Councils plans moving forward are:

  1.  Have a public meeting where questions are gathered and sent to SBC
  2. Invite SBC to a meeting to provide answers to the questions.

17/17 Outstanding Applications

1435 – Manor House – Clerk to ask after the delay with this.

0335 – Esso Station – Need to make sure it is still going to the planning committee despite Ward Cllr Shaw changing his views.

0745 – 41 Home Close – Decision to go to SBC by 7th June

A vote was then taken to approve the planning application 0745. Cllr Brady proposed this vote, Cllr Henderson seconded and all Cllrs were in favour.

It was noted that on the Burderop Park application, Historic England has objected.

0821 – Hodson Road.

A vote was taken to approve the planning application 0821. Cllr Brady proposed this vote, Cllr Beaumont seconded and all Cllrs were in favour.

Cllr Brady is going to source a list of the valid items that can be objected to, and what cannot.

17/18. AOB

There is a vehicle still obstructing the sight line in Well Close. This needs to go to Transport Development Committee.

Cllr Brady will create the Planning TOR for the next meeting.

The meeting closed at 21.39pm.

Action points:

  •  Clerk – 17/07 – Standing Orders to be amended still.
  • New action ref inside of Esso Station. There has never been a planning application on the number of retail outlets. Does there need to be one. Clerk to ask SBC.
  • No other outstanding actions.



  • 17/06. Ask the owners of the Esso Station whether they can include some planting to soften the look of the storage area.
  • 17/07. Update Standing Orders to include the changes to the frequency of the Planning meetings for application decisions and also Clerk’s delegated powers.
  • 17/14. Ask SBC if a planning application should have been submitted for the retail outlets at the Esso Station.
  • 17/17. Clerk to ask after delay on Manor House application 1435
  • 17/17. Make sure that application 0335 for Esso Station storage still going to planning committee.
  • 17/17. Source a list of valid reasons why a planning application can be objected to.
  • 17/18. Create a draft TOR for the next meeting.