ITEM 5 MARLBOROUGH TOWN COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MONDAY 26 OCTOBER 2020 Planning Decision Notices issued by Wiltshire Council for the period 26 September to 16 October 2020 a) 19/10631/FUL – Conversion of former school building to form a 23 bedroom hotel with restaurant and bar, conversion and extension of outbuildings to accommodate an ancillary gym/spa and to form a dwelling, and the construction of 7 new-build dwellings at rear, together with parking and associated works Decision: Approve with Conditions MTC: Welcomes and supports b) 19/11249/LBC - Conversion of former school building to form a 23 bedroom hotel with restaurant and bar, conversion and extension of outbuildings to accommodate an ancillary gym/spa and to form a dwelling Decision: Approve with Conditions MTC: Welcomes and supports c) 20/03411/LBC – 5 High Street, Marlborough The erection of a bracket and sign indicating Marlborough Town Council offices and tourism enquiries Decision: Approve with Conditions MTC: Noted d) 20/03748/FUL – Copelands, Poulton Hill, Marlborough Demolition of existing house. Build new house into the gradient of the land. The ground floor to house the bedrooms and be forwards of the living areas over Decision: Approve with Conditions MTC: No objection e) 20/06212/FUL – 56 Rogers Meadow, Marlborough Garage conversion and rear extension Decision: Approve with Conditions MTC: No objection f) 20/06267/FUL – Castle Court, Flat 10, River Park, Marlborough Change existing window to door opening Decision: Approve with Conditions MTC: No objection g) 20/06407/FUL – Manton Corner, Bath Road, Marlborough Proposed garage extension Decision: Approve with Conditions MTC: No objection h) 20/06492/FUL – Folly Dale, Barnfield, Marlborough Increase in ridge height of existing bungalow to two storey height (amendment to planning permission 20/00807/FUL to allow for change of materials and construction of single storey rear extension) Decision: Approve with Conditions MTC: No objection i) 20/06578/TPO – Starres Hill, Bath Road, Marlborough Pine (T1) – crown-raise to 8 metres from ground level to remove suppression of adjacent trees and shrubs and crown-clean Yew (T2) – prune to reduce crown by 2 metres and vertically to contain within small space Maple (T3) – crown-raise to 3.5 metres from ground level and prune lower crown to reduce laterally by 3 metres to relieve overhang and suppression Ash (T4) – crown-raise to 3.5 metres from ground level and prune lower crown to reduce laterally by 4 metres to relieve overhang and suppression Box Elder (T5) – pollard to terminate stem at 3 metres from ground level to remove damaged crown and encourage preferred response Decision: Approve with Conditions MTC: No objection j) 20/06850/FUL – 1 The Green, Marlborough Addition of Use Class D1 in addition to existing Use Class A2 Decision: Approve with Conditions MTC: No objection k) 20/07377/TCA – 73 High Street, Marlborough Laurel tree – fell Decision: No objection MTC: No objection l) 20/07743/TCA – 5 River Park, Marlborough Whitebeam – remove Decision: No objection MTC: Objects as the tree appears to be healthy and suggests instead that the section of root is removed that causing an issue with a drainage pipe Wiltshire Council Tree Officer Comments: The proposed works are acceptable and would not have any adverse effects on the amenity value of the conservation area therefore, the council have considered it expedient not to place the tree under additional protection at this time. The applicant should consider replanting similar trees as replacements within a more suitable location within the curtilage of the property. ITEM 8 Development of the former Police Station at George Lane, Marlborough Summary – Members are asked to note this update report and consider feedback on points raised about the associated planning application (20/07915/OUT) and also the naming of the proposed development 1. Background At the Planning Committee meeting of 5 October, whilst there were no objections raised about the outline planning application, concerns were raised about safe-guarding issues and Marlborough St Mary’s Primary School adjacent to the site. An extract from the minutes is as follows: 20/07915/OUT – Demolition of former police station and erection of dwellings and apartments with associated access at Wiltshire Police, George Lane, Marlborough for Kim Glenister The Chair noted letters had been submitted asking for the inclusion of “swift bricks” to support wildlife, and to ask for conditions relating to an adjacent car park during the build phase. During a suspension of Standing Orders Members discussed Marlborough St Mary’s School’s concerns about safeguarding and child protection. Some type of screening such as evergreen trees, or obscured glass were suggested as mitigation. A main concern from the school was that the path – and children using it - within the grounds of the school that runs alongside the development and joins the public footpath between George Lane and Van Diemens Close should not be visible from the new development. The Town Clerk had spoken to the Planning Officer and reminded Councillors that this was an outline planning application. Other points from that discussion included that the applicant - Wiltshire Police - had a duty to design out crime. Core Policy 57 could also provide guidance about design and amenity for the development. On another note, the Town Clerk had received assurances that the developers would be open to suggestions about the name of the development and that the desire to retain the blue lamp and historic masonry would be taken into account. Members asked that names for the development should be discussed at a future meeting. Update: The Town Clerk contacted Wiltshire Police and the WC Planning Officer and has received a response from Wiltshire Council summarised as follows: Safeguarding issues: ‘This is not a planning matter, but the building is set down from the school site by approx. 1.5m with a garden separation of over 10m which is within planning policy requirements, the boundary is a 1.8 cb fence with 0.3 trellis on top and so at ground level both sites have no visual permeability.’ Naming of the Development: ‘This could be controlled in the design guide passport documentation if necessary.’ ITEM 8 A question was also asked about whether the land at the corner top of the path leading from George Lane to Van Diemens is in the ownership of Wiltshire Police (this was in connection with the proposed widening of that path used by children walking to and from school) ‘This is outside our redline boundary and therefore does not form part of this application.’ 2. Naming of the Development Following discussion at the last meeting, there have been suggestions about possible names for the development. A local resident has written a letter to the Town Clerk (see Appendix 1) as well as to the Gazette & Herald. All names put forward are: Copper Close Copper’s Close Constable Close Neville Court (after Elizabeth Neville, former Chief Constable of Wiltshire) Wiltshire Police had previously indicated that it would be open to input on naming the development and most recently (as referred to above) that it could be controlled in the design guide passport documentation 3. Financial Implications There are no financial implications. Town Clerk’s Recommendations The Town Clerk recommends that Councillors decide whether to take any further action on responses to questions put to Wiltshire Police about the new development and if any of the suggested names should be submitted to Wiltshire Police as the name for the new development. Town Clerk 22 October 2020 ITEM 9 Planning for the Future – Consultations Summary – This report asks Members to consider a recommendation from the Planning Working Party around responses to the following government consultations: Planning for the future – the Planning White Paper Transparency and competition: a call for evidence on data on land control 1. Background A one page summary of the White Paper is at Appendix 1 A copy of Planning for the future – the Planning White Paper is at Appendix 2 A copy of Transparency and competition: a call for evidence on data on land control is at Appendix 3 The deadline for responses to both consultations is 30 October 2020. 2. Planning Working Party Meeting A Planning Working Party took place on 20 October to work through both consultations. Councillors Price (Chair), Heath, Hall, Waltham, Cooper and Cairns attended. Suggested responses to Planning for the Future White Paper are at Appendix 4. Members are asked to consider responses to questions 20 and 23. It is also further suggested that the following statement be submitted as an overall response for the Transparency and Competition consultation: Greater transparency is to be welcomed on land registry documentation as well as easier access to them. This will help to ensure development takes place in the right areas as current systems allow for the unsatisfactory practice of land banking making purchase of land to meet local needs more difficult. Planning Working Party’s Recommendation The Planning Working Party recommends that: i) Members agree responses to questions 20 and 23 of the White Paper and that all other responses suggested at Appendix 4 be submitted as the Town Council’s formal response and ii) That the statement in response to the consultation around Transparency and Competition is also submitted. Town Clerk 22 October 2020 ITEM 9 Appendix 1 Planning for the Future The Planning White Paper on a single page The