Agenda item

Demolition of existing buildings and construction of five dwellings and associated works.

Public Participation

·       Mr Alistair Gordon – spoke in opposition to the application

·       Mr Bill Donald – spoke in opposition to the application

·       Mr Neil Jones – spoke in opposition to the application

·       Mr Richard Cosker (RCC Town Planning Consultancy) – spoke in support of the application

·       Mr Nick Church (Gaiger Brothers) – spoke in support of the application

·       Mr Sam Gaiger (Gaiger Brothers) - spoke in support of the application

·       Cllr Pam Moscrop (Urchfont Parish Council) – spoke in opposition to the application

The Senior Planning Officer, David Millinship, introduced a report which recommended that the application for the demolition of existing buildings, including the local garage, and construction of five dwellings and associated works, be granted. Key details were stated to include the principle of development, highway impacts, the design and the impact on the historic environment.

Attention was drawn to comments from neighbours of the proposed development that had been received since the report had been published. The officer confirmed that none of the comments changed the conclusions of his report. He also drew the Committee’s attention to the incorrectly listed planning references in condition 9 of the report and advised them to update this condition if they were minded to approve the application.

The officer explained that the proposed development was considered to preserve the setting of nearby listed buildings, so would enhance the appearance of the conservation area that bisected the site. Although it was acknowledged that the proposed development would result in the loss of an employment site, it was not in conflict with Core Policy 35 (Existing Employment Land) of the Wiltshire Core Strategy. The erection of five new dwellings would deliver new homes on a site allocated for development in the Urchfont Neighbourhood Plan.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of officers.

Details were sought on how long the site had operated as a commercial premises, as well as the number of people that had commented on the application. It was confirmed that commercial activity had taken place on the site over many decades and that around 140 responses had been received.

The Committee noted that it would not be necessary for the applicant to apply for a separate listed building consent, as the party wall with the nearby Grade II listed building would not be impacted.

Officers explained how Wiltshire Council’s inability to demonstrate a four-year housing supply impacted how they had assessed the application. It was noted that the housing land supply was a material consideration, as it placed greater emphasis on the tilted planning balance in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). However, although the proposed development would make a small positive contribution towards meeting the housing land supply, it was explained that the starting points for decision making were the Wiltshire Core Strategy and Urchfont Neighbourhood Plan. The Core Strategy did not have any specific policies that protected employment sites in villages, as it did for market towns and service centres. The site had also been allocated for development in the Neighbourhood Plan.

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

The Unitary Division Member, Cllr Philip Whitehead then spoke in opposition to the application.

In response to the points raised by the public and Unitary Division Member, it was emphasised that, notwithstanding concerns about the information available to the Urchfont Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group at the time that the Neighbourhood Plan was voted on, it was a democratically approved and needed to be accorded appropriate weight in the planning balance.

The officers explained that the loss of employment and a community facility were factors considered in the planning balance. However, Urchfont garage fell outside of the types of ‘local services’ within the NPPF list (within para. 88d) and was not considered to be of a sufficient scale to warrant protection for “its long term and strategic” contribution to employment land within Wiltshire. Given that the site was allocated for housing in the Neighbourhood Plan, it enhanced the appearance of the conservation area and provided rural housing, it was not considered that the tilted balance was against the development.

In order to start the debate, Cllr Dominic Muns, seconded by Cllr Stuart Wheeler, proposed that the application be refused contrary to officer recommendation.

A debate followed where issues such as the level of public opposition to the proposals and the need to support rural employment opportunities were discussed.

Some members raised concerns about the examination phase, and submission to referendum, of the Neighbourhood Plan. It was noted that the garage was struggling financially at the time that the Neighbourhood Plan was drafted and that it was now a viable concern. However, some members cautioned against including the Neighbourhood Plan as a reason for refusal, given that it had still gone through a democratic process and as they did not want to create a precedent for other applications.

Officers also advised against refusing the application on highway safety grounds as the council’s highway team were satisfied that there would not be any unacceptable impacts.

At the conclusion of the discussion, it was then:

Resolved

To REFUSE the application for the demolition of existing buildings, including the local garage, and construction of five dwellings and associated works.

Reasons

The proposal would result in the loss of a village employment site that provides a valued local service, to the detriment of the principles of sustainable development.  This is contrary to Core Policy 49 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy and paragraphs 7, 8 11(d)(ii) and 88 of the National Planning Policy Framework.