Agenda item

Erection of 1 No. dwelling and associated works following demolition of redundant outbuildings, (Outline application for access and layout only)

Public Participation.

Pamela Fisher spoke in Objection to the application.

Cally Troup spoke in Objection to the application.

Mary Corrie (Applicant) spoke in Support of the application

Chris Beaver (Agent) spoke in support of the application

Cllr David Wood (Chairman) Teffont Parish Council spoke in support of the application in principle.

The Area Team Leader drew attention to the late correspondence circulated at the meeting and presented the application, noting that this was an Outline application for the erection of 1dwelling and associated works following

demolition of redundant outbuildings. The application follows an application made in March 2015 for a similar proposal, which was refused by the Southern Area Planning Committee in June 2015. The application was recommended for approval subject to conditions.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officers, it was noted that the retained barn as shown on the plan could be removed under Grampian style permission as it was on part of the applicants land.

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

The Unitary Division Member; Councillor Bridget Wayman spoke in Objection to the application, noting that she was a Wiltshire Council representative on the CC&WWDAONB Partnership Panel which was an alliance of 18 local, national and regional organisations that guides the implementation of the Management Plan.

Cllr Wayman felt that the proposal was contrary to the policies CP1 & 2 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy and the exception policies CP44 for Rural Exception sites and CP48 Supporting Rural Life. Adding that Local Planning Authorities should avoid granting permission for new isolated homes in the countryside unless there were special circumstances, such as the essential need for a rural worker, the use of a heritage asset, where the development would lead re-use redundant or dis-used buildings and lead to an enhancement of the immediate setting, or the exceptional quality or innovative design of a building, however she felt that none of these exceptions applied in this instance.

A decision on whether the development was of exceptional quality of innovative design could not be determined as only an outline application had been submitted. Both the AONB and the parish council had expressed their concern at supporting such type of application.

The likelihood of the visitor centre ever reopening was very unlikely as it had been closed for 3 years now, so this was a minor concern.

The master plan which accompanied the application stated that elements of the vision would need to be revisited if this section of the application was approved.

Originally the Lodges were permitted subject to the condition that upon Farmer Giles Farmstead ceasing to trade or operate from the land and/or ceasing to be open to the public, the lodges shall be removed and the land reinstated to grassland in accordance with a scheme to be submitted and approved by the LPA. Yet despite it being mentioned on two occasions, this had not been addressed.

The applicant already had a house within a couple of hundred yards of the site, and had managed to run the visitor centre and the holiday lodges from there for more than a decade.

The Committee should see a full and detailed application not an outline application so it could see exactly what was proposed in order to be able to see the design and how it might fit into and complement the landscape.

Cllr Wayman felt that the application was contrary to so many policies, and asked the Committee to refuse it.

However, if the Committee was mindful to approve, Cllr Wayman asked that the issue of the removal of the holiday lodges if tourist attraction was close be actioned. Or enforcement action needed to be taken.

Councillor Mike Hewitt noted that with any application there was always a bit of give and take. He proposed that an additional condition be included to ensure the house was linked to the farm and could not be sold separately. Councillor Hewitt then proposed the application be approved in line with Officers recommendation. This was seconded by Councillor Jeans.

The Committee then discussed the application where it was noted that a master plan or site vision had not been provided. In the previous application some Members had supported the proposal for the removal of some rundown farm buildings, this application now did not include this as part of the proposals and so it was felt that reduced the justification to permit the development in the AONB.

It was suggested that there had not been an overwhelming show of community support or of an up and coming NHP to support the development. It was felt that an outline application for this site did not help when considering the development as it was too vague.

The Committee noted that the parish council had listed 8 conditions they would like to see included if the application was to be approved, some of which were not within the scope of the Committee.

It was felt that the Lodges should be removed if the Farmer Giles Farmstead had close, and enforcement should take place now to have them removed.

It was acknowledged that the applicant had already indicated that they would be happy for the barn to be demolished under Grampian conditions. This was supported by the Committee.

The Committee then voted on the motion put forward by Cllr Hewitt, this was lost. Cllr Devine then put forward a second motion of refusal, against Officers recommendation for the existing reasons for refusal of the previous application. This was seconded by Cllr Mike Hewitt.

Resolved

That application 16/06888/OUT be refused 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 in 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 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 outweigh the harm to the countryside.

The proposal is, therefore, contrary to Core Policies 1 and 2 (the settlement and delivery strategies) of the Wiltshire Core Strategy, Core Policy 51 (Landscape) of the Wiltshire Core Strategy, and guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework - paragraphs 109 and 115.

2.     The application site supports three holiday lodges. These lodges were given planning permission subject to conditions requiring their removal in the event of Farmer Giles Farmstead Ltd ceasing to trade or operate from the land and/or ceasing to be open to the public. The description of development set out on the application forms is "Demolition of some existing buildings and cessation of business and erection of a dwelling all matters reserved save for access, scale and siting". The supporting Design and Access Statement further states that "the 'tourist' use cabins [the lodges] would remain on site".

Having regard to the conditions on the earlier permissions relating to the lodges it is considered to be unclear from the current application how the lodges can remain. Notwithstanding the additional statement received during the application from the applicant.