Agenda item

Proposed dwelling on site of former horticultural buildings

Public Participation

Howard Waters, agent, spoke in support of the application.

The Planning Officer, Nick Clark, introduced the report which recommended that planning permission be refused for a proposed dwelling on the site of former horticultural buildings. Key issues were stated to include the impact upon the setting of Devizes Castle as a scheduled monument and Grade I listed building, and the impact upon other listed buildings nearby and the archaeological potential of the site.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officers. Details were sought on the likelihood of archaeological remains being present on the slopes of the castle setting, previous development in the area and the status of the site in the context of the Devizes Area of Minimum Change.

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

The local unitary division member, Councillor Sue Evans, then spoke in support of the application.

A debate followed, where it was discussed whether there were any public benefits to the scheme which would outweigh any harm caused by development. The design and scale of the proposals was also raised, along with the objections on archaeological and conservation grounds, as well as the significant impact upon the Castle’s setting.

A motion to refuse the application was moved by Councillor Nick Fogg, seconded by Councillor Jerry Kunkler, and at the conclusion of debate it was,

Resolved:

That planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1)    The application site occupies a sensitive heritage setting in the designated Area of Minimum Change on the slopes at the base of the Devizes Castle mound, where the largely undeveloped nature of the land and its residual character as former gardens to the castle contribute to the heritage significance of the Scheduled Monument and Grade I listed castle. Within this setting, the proposed dwelling would be visible from a number of directions. The significant size and elevated position of the dwelling and the associated access and garden accoutrements would be detrimental the character and appearance of the site and would intrude upon the heritage setting of the castle and particularly the relationship between the castle and the grade I listed St John’s Church, resulting in less than substantial harm to their heritage significance. As such, the development would be contrary to Kennet Local Plan policy HH10 and Wiltshire Core Strategy Core Policy 57 and Core Policy 58, and in the absence of public benefits sufficient to outweigh the harm, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework.

2)    The development would necessitate significant excavation and earthworks in an area where there is the potential for significant archaeological remains to exist such as the bailey and/or town defences and medieval settlement remains. In the absence of archaeological investigation of the site, the nature and extent of archaeological remains unclear and thus the impact of the development on the archaeological value of the site cannot be determined. As such, the application would be contrary to Wiltshire Core Strategy Core Policy 57 and Core Policy 58 and the advice of the National Planning Policy Framework.

3)    In the absence of the results of further survey work to identify the extent and species of bats and reptiles on the site (as recommended in the submitted ecological assessment) the Council cannot be satisfied that the development would not have an adverse impact on protected species. As such, the development would be contrary to Wiltshire Core Strategy Core Policy 50.