Agenda item

Public Participation

Mr Tony Allen spoke in support of the application.

Cllr David Wood, Chairman of Teffont Parish Council, spoke in support of the application.

The Area Development Manager presented the report which recommended that permission be delegated for approval subject to the applicant entering into planning obligation for the delivery of a financial contribution towards local recreation provision, and subject to the following conditions. Key issues were stated to include the principal of development and the sustainability of the proposal, which officers considered an improvement on the existing situation with many defunct buildings.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. Details were sought on the size of the building plot and scale of the proposal, but it was stated as an outline application many details were not yet finalized, although it was around 600m². Other queries included the activity at the site, and whether the Farmer Giles attraction was ever in operation or had be wound down completely, and the number of lodges and caravans that could use the wider site. It was also confirmed that the application had been referred to Committee under delegated powers as the applicant was a relative of a Wiltshire Councillor.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their views to the Committee as detailed above.

The local Unitary Division Member, Councillor Bridget Wayman, then spoke in objection to the application, stating that the principle of constructing a new large house in the countryside was against policy, and the trade off of the unsightly car park and a few now unused buildings being removed was not sufficient. She also stated that the original permission for the lodges and caravans had been contingent upon the Farmer Giles business being in operation and the land should be restored as it was no longer operating.

A debate followed, where the Committee discussed whether the employment land at the site was unviable and suitable for conversion to residential status, and whether the continued existence of multiple disused properties closer to the road meant that the improvement to the landscape from some removals sufficiently enhanced the area as a result. In response to queries it was also stated that the land was classified as a brownfield site, with attendant permitted development rights. Members also discussed the views of Wiltshire Councils Spatial Planning team and any traffic implications.

 At the conclusion of debate, it was,

Resolved:

To REFUSE the application for the following reasons:

1.     The application site lies in open countryside and an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  Within the countryside there is effectively a presumption against new residential development except in limited circumstances not relevant to this case.  This presumption is in the interests of sustainability and amenity.  It follows that as a matter of principle the proposal comprises unacceptable development. 

In terms of harm, the proposal would introduce a house and its curtilage with inevitable domestic paraphernalia, and these would be visually intrusive and alien in such an isolated and rural location, distant from other residential properties or any settlement.  By reason of their visibility and alien appearance, the house and its curtilage would detract from the wider appearance of the landscape, neither conserving nor enhancing its status as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  There are no exceptional circumstances which would outweigh the harm to the countryside and landscape.   

The proposal is, therefore, contrary to the principles of the settlement strategy set out in Policy CP1 of the South Wiltshire Core Strategy (and Policies CP1 and CP2 of the emerging Wiltshire Core Strategy) and ‘Saved’ Policies C2 and C4 of the Salisbury District Local Plan, and the guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework – paragraphs 109 and 115.  

2.     The development would be contrary to saved Policy R2 of the Salisbury District Local Plan, as provision for public open space has not been made.

Informative: Reason 2 above can be overcome by the applicant entering into a Section 106 Agreement in respect of Policy R2.