Agenda item

Public Participation

James Cain spoke in objection to the application.

Roland Castlemaine spoke in objection to the application.

Alistair White spoke in objection to the application.

Andrew Bracey spoke in support to the application.

Mike Fowler spoke in support to the application.

Richard Humphries QC spoke in support to the application.

Cllr Patrick Boyles (Parish Council) spoke in objection to the application.

The Local Member, Cllr Bridget Wayman, spoke in objection to the application. Cllr Wayman declared that she was a member of the the Cranborne Chase and West Wiltshire Downs AONB Partnership Panel. Cllr Wayman raised the core strategy and stated that the site was in the open countryside. The need to respect the existing character and form of the village was also stated. Cllr Wayman raised concern that this development would be defined as infilling. The visual impact of the design on the surrounding listed building was raised. The potential for changing the characteristics of the loose-knit area was stated. Concern was raised by Cllr Wayman into the materials (and quantities of these materials) to be used in the construction of the proposed dwellings. It was stated that flood prevention guidance was at an early stage and the development was therefore premature.

The Planning Officer presented their report to the Committee which recommended that permission be granted subject to the completion of a section 106 obligation requiring payment of a financial contribution towards off-site recreation / open space provision and conditions.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. The demolition of two existing dwellings was raised. The number of trees and hedges to be retained were discussed, as well as their ecological significance.

An item of late correspondence was circulated at the meeting.

Members discussed the benefit to the village of the development. The definition of ‘infill’ was discussed and how it related to this application. Concern was raised in relation to the design of the proposal and also the removal of existing screening. Members raised Highways concerns. The core strategy was discussed and the need for growth in the area was raised. Members raised concern in regards to the quantity of dwellings proposed for an area of this size. The sustainability of the location was raised and local need was considered. The potential for a change to the character of the village was debated. Members raised concern in relation to the demolition of two houses that were in the character of the village.

Members debated the need for growth in Chilmark and how this could be achieved sustainably. The need for specific amenities in the village was discussed. The achievement of affordable housing in the area was raised. Members discussed the instalment of a pavement and refuse collection at the development. Members stated that this was not an infill development and was instead an overdevelopment of the site. Concerns in regards to Highways and the impact on streetscene were also debated.

Resolved:

To refused planning permission for the following reasons:

1          Core Policy 1 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy sets out the 'Settlement Strategy' for the county, and identifies four tiers of settlement - Principal Settlements, Market Towns, Local Service Centres, and Large and Small Villages. Within the Settlement Strategy Chilmark is identified as being a Small Village. Only the Principal Settlements, Market Towns, Local Service Centres and Large Villages have defined limits of development, and there is a general presumption against development outside of these. However, some very modest development may be appropriate at Small Villages to respond to local needs and to contribute to the vitality of rural communities.

Core Policy 27 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy sets out the 'Spatial Strategy' for the Tisbury Community Area which confirms that development in the Tisbury Community Area should be in accordance with the Settlement Strategy set out in Core Policy 1 and growth in the Tisbury Community Area over the plan period may consist of a range of sites in accordance with Core Policies 1 and 2.

Core Policy 2 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy sets out the 'Delivery Strategy'. It identifies the scale of growth appropriate within each settlement tier. The policy states that at the Small Villages such as Chilmark development will be limited to infill within the existing built area where it seeks to meet housing needs of the settlement or provide employment, services and facilities and provided that the development:

1. Respects the existing character and form of the settlement

2. Does not elongate the village or impose development in sensitive landscape areas, and

3. Does not consolidate an existing sporadic loose knit areas of development related to the settlement.

Infill is defined in the Core Strategy as the filling of a small gap within the village that is only large enough for not more than a few dwellings, generally only one dwelling.

In this case the proposal is to demolish two existing houses and erect in their place a development of six new houses. In terms of Core Policy 2 it is considered that development at this scale and in this form does not satisfy the definition of infill, and consequently the proposal is unacceptable in terms of both the Core Strategy's Settlement and Delivery Strategies. Specifically, and in the first place, re-development of this site at the scale and in the form envisaged - namely, demolition of two existing dwellings and erection of six new dwellings - does not amount to the filling of a small gap for generally only one dwelling; and secondly, by reason of its scale, form, layout and design, which are all at odds with established development in the immediate locality, it is not considered that the proposal respects the existing character and form of the settlement, and would consolidate an existing sporadic loose knit area of development to the detriment of its character and appearance.

It follows that the proposal is contrary to Core Policies 1, 2 and 27 in that it would deliver development which does not accord with the Settlement and Delivery Strategies of the Core Strategy. The Strategies are designed to ensure new development fulfils the fundamental principles of sustainability and so it follows that where new development such as this would not accord with the Strategies, it is unsustainable in this defining and overarching context.

2          The proposed development, by reason of its scale, form and layout, would be out of keeping with the character and appearance of established development in the locality, and in Cow Drove in particular.

Established development in Cow Drove is dominated by larger, detached dwellings set in spacious plots defined by, in the main, significant hedgerows and/or tree lines. It is this green and treed appearance which defines the character of Cow Drove, and the two existing properties on the application site conform to this.

The proposal would introduce to the site six dwellings in place of the existing two. This increase in built form, with the new dwellings sited relatively close together and also relatively close to the boundaries of the site, is at odds with the green and treed character defined above. Whereas established development is dominated by hedgerows and trees, the proposal would be dominated by the dwellings, with insufficient space between and around them to allow new and existing landscaping to establish and/or remain to maintain the established character.

More specifically, the removal of sections of and cutting back of established hedgerows necessary to achieve the required visibility splay at the site entrance and provision of a footpath along part of the frontage to Cow Drove (required in order to provide improved visibility at the B3089/Cow Drove junction and provide a benefit for all users of Cow Drove); would be harmful to the established green and treed character defined above. From this it is concluded that the proposal has not satisfactorily addressed the dichotomy between maintaining the character of the area and achieving safe access to the site.

So, in essence, the proposal, by reason of its scale (specifically 6 units), its form (specifically, large detached or semi-detached houses), and its layout (with limited space between and around the houses to maintain a spacious appearance and to enable landscaping to establish and/or remain), is cramped and overcrowded and would consolidate the existing sporadic and loose knit arrangement of established development in Cow Drove, and so be out of keeping with the character and appearance of the area, which will have a resultant adverse impact on the setting of the adjacent Grade II Listed Black Dog Public House. This is contrary to Core Policy 2, Core Policy 50, Core Policy 57 (in particular points i, ii, iii and vi of Core Policy 57) and Core Policy 58 of the Adopted Wiltshire Core Strategy, Objective 16 of the Adopted Supplementary Planning Document "Creating Places Design Guide April

2006", and guidance within the NPPF and NPPG (in particular paragraph: 023

Reference ID: 26-023-20140306).

3          The proposed development does not make provision for off-site public recreational open space facilities and is contrary to saved policy R2 of the Salisbury District Local Plan (included in the saved policies listed in Appendix D, of the Adopted Wiltshire Core Strategy) and Core Policy 3 of the Adopted Wiltshire Core Strategy.

INFORMATIVE: The refusal reason given above relating to saved policy R2 has been included in the event the applicant decides to appeal against the decision in order for the Planning Inspector to consider this, but it is noted that the applicant is willing to enter into such an agreement and the refusal reason could be overcome if all the appropriate parties complete a Section 106 Agreement contributing to recreational open space provision.

Cllr Mike Hewitt and Cllr John Smale wished their dissent for the decision to be recorded.