Agenda and draft minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Stuart Wheeler and Cllr Tony Pickernell.

Cllr Stuart Wheeler attended the meeting as the Local Member for Pewsey Vale East and therefore Cllr Dominic Muns attended the meeting in his place as a Committee Member.

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 27 February 2025.

The minutes of the meeting held on 27February 2025 were presented for consideration, and it was;

Resolved:

To approve and sign as a true and correct record of the minutes of the meeting held on 27 February 2025.

To receive any declarations of disclosable interests or dispensations granted by the Standards Committee.

There were no declarations of disclosable interest or dispensations granted by the Standards Committee.

To receive any announcements through the Chair.

There was no Chairman’s Announcements.

The Council welcomes contributions from members of the public.

Statements

Members of the public who wish to speak either in favour or against an application or any other item on this agenda are asked to register no later than 10 minutes before the start of the meeting. If it is on the day of the meeting registration should be done in person.

The rules on public participation in respect of planning applications are linked to in the Council’s Planning Code of Good Practice. The Chairman will allow up to 3 speakers in favour and up to 3 speakers against an application, and up to 3 speakers on any other item on this agenda. Each speaker will be given up to 3 minutes and invited to speak immediately prior to the item being considered.

Members of the public and others will have had the opportunity to make representations on planning applications and other items on the agenda, and to contact and lobby their local elected member and any other members of the planning committee, prior to the meeting.

Those circulating such information prior to the meeting, written or photographic, are advised to also provide a copy to the case officer for the application or item, in order to officially log the material as a representation, which will be verbally summarised at the meeting by the relevant officer, not included within any officer slide presentation if one is made. Circulation of new information which has not been verified by planning officers or case officers is also not permitted during the meetings.

Questions

To receive any questions from members of the public or members of the Council received in accordance with the constitution which excludes, in particular, questions on non-determined planning applications.

Those wishing to ask questions are required to give notice of any such questions in writing to the officer named on the front of this agenda no later than 5pm on Thursday 20 March in order to be guaranteed of a written response. In order to receive a verbal response, questions must be submitted no later than 5pm on Monday 24 March. Please contact the officer named on the front of this agenda for further advice. Questions may be asked without notice if the Chairman decides that the matter is urgent.

Details of any questions received will be circulated to Committee members prior to the meeting and made available at the meeting and on the Council’s website.

No questions had been received from councillors or members of the public.

The Chairman welcomed all present. He then explained the rules of public participation and the procedure to be followed at the meeting.

To receive details of the completed and pending appeals, and any other updates as appropriate.

Resolved:

The Committee noted the Planning Appeals Update Report for 27 March 2025.

Redevelopment of site for residential use, including vehicular and pedestrian access and parking, amenity space, landscaping and associated works.

Public Participation

Susan Bailey spoke in objection to the application.

Matthew McShane spoke in support of the application.

Cllr Mervyn Hall spoke on behalf of Marlborough Town Council.

Planning Officer, David Millinship presented a report which outlined the redevelopment of site for residential use, including vehicular and pedestrian access and parking, amenity space, landscaping and associated works.

Details were provided of the site and issues raised by the proposals, including the principle of development; affordable housing and viability; transport, highways and parking; and contaminated land. Further issues included design, including heritage and landscape impacts; flood risk and drainage’ residential amenity (future occupiers and neighbours); ecology and biodiversity.

Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions regarding the application. Details were sought on the cladding that would be used in the proposal, to which it was clarified that this would not be insultation cladding and would not be combustible but rather a thin sheet of metal cladding to coat the outside of the buildings. A further point was also made regarding the flood zone in which the proposal was located in, to which it was noted that there had been debate as to whether the site was located within Flood Zone 1 and that the Environment Agency had stated that the applicants could do their own flood modelling using a suitably qualified flood risk surveyor, after  which, the modelling confirmed that the site was within Flood Zone 2 and that a drainage strategy could also be used to manage this.

A point was raised about affordable housing, to which it was noted that the recently adopted Neighbourhood Plan had a requirement for sites to deliver  40% affordable housing for up to 10 dwellings however it had been agreed that this site would not be viable to deliver 40% affordable housing, due to contamination issues which could add significantly  to the building costs. It was also hoped that  affordable housing would be delivered  by other sites  in the area not allocated within the Neighbourhood Plan. The history of the site was also discussed and that it had been in its current condition since before 2008.

Members also raised a point regarding the high density of the proposals within a low-density area, to which clarity was provided that initially the applicants had been guided by the Neighbourhood Plan to include 10 properties, however this was revised and reduced to 9 properties due to parking issues. It was also suggested that though the site was high density, it was very well contained and in a sustainable location close to the town centre as well as recreation facilities.. The design of the properties was also discussed with it suggested that the designs were out of keeping for the area, to which officers noted that though this was a modern design they would need to be careful not to be subjective in judgement following design guidance.

Further clarity was sought regarding affordable housing provision within other developments; it was confirmed that the York  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15.1

Retrospective application for the conversion and rebuild of barns to form a detached dwellinghouse and creation of a domestic curtilage (resubmission of PL/2024/03416).

Public Participation

Richard Cosker spoke in support of the application.

Kevin McQuaid spoke in support of the application.

Senior Planning Officer, Julie Mitchell presented a report which outlined the retrospective application for the conversion and rebuild of barns to form a detached dwellinghouse and creation of a domestic curtilage (resubmission of PL/2024/03416).

Details were provided of the site and issues raised by the proposals, including the background; principle of development visual, landscape and heritage impacts; residential amenity; highway safety and ecology.

The Senior Planning Officer noted that there had been an update in regard to the application and that a statement had been received from the applicant prior to the meeting regarding nutrient neutrality. Therefore, following discussions with an ecology officer ahead of the meeting, with delegation, officers would be able to consider planning and legal conditions in relation to this issue should the application be approved by Committee.

Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions regarding the application.

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

The Local Unitary Member, Cllr Chris Williams then spoke regarding the application. Cllr Williams raised the following points, which included but were not limited to that having spoken to both the planning officer and applicant he understood both viewpoints. Cllr Williams noted that he accepted that the application was slightly bigger than the previously agreed footprint however the buildings retained the same shape and perspectives. Reference was also drawn to how the previous buildings had not been in a fit state and were damaged before restoration work could commence. It was noted that the applicant should have made a new application on the collapse of the old building, however from a practical sense the building was more or less the same as the previous one and brought benefits.

The Senior Planning Officer was then provided an opportunity to respond to points that had been raised by public speakers and the Local Unitary Member. This included that on the previous application there had been no objection from highways as the conversion of the building over-ruled an objection for sustainability. It was however outlined that this application would not be a resubmission of the previous scheme and would technically be a new dwelling, therefore there would be a sustainability objection as a conversion had not taken place.

The officer also outlined that discussions had only taken place following enforcement investigation and that the building now stood substantially complete and that at the time, advice had been given in regard to internal adjustments to the property which had partially collapsed and the existing envelope and footprint rather than a new building. It was also outlined that the increased size of the property could be quantified as 136sqm and just under a 20% increase. Reference was also drawn to how following Cabinet Changes, mitigation credits needed to be purchased by developers in order to fund mitigation, however such credits are not provided to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15.2

Demolition of existing lean-to to west elevation and erection of replacement 1.5-storey extension, erection of 1.5 storey extension to north elevation and associated listed building consent.

Public Participation

Christopher Fisher spoke in support of the application.

Bob Edwards spoke in support of the application.

Cllr Mike Lockhart spoke on behalf of Shalbourne Parish Council.

Conservation/Planning Officer, Joe Leesam presented a report which outlined the demolition of existing lean-to to west elevation and erection of replacement 1.5-storey extension, erection of 1.5 storey extension to north elevation and associated listed building consent.

Details were provided of the site and issues raised by the proposals, including principle of development; Design, Visual Impact, and Impact upon Designated Heritage Assets; Residential amenity; Highways and Parking; Impact upon the North Wessex Downs National Landscape.

Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions regarding the application. Details were sought regarding whether it was a planning consideration for the roof of the proposed extension to cut into the existing thatched roof, to which it was clarified that this related to protecting heritage and would have more relevance to the listed building application due to the potential impact on the historic building fabric. A point was raised that the plans suggested that the rear extension was taller than the front extension however it was clarified that this would be marginal and would not materially impact the decision to be made by the Committee.

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

The Local Unitary Member, Cllr Stuart Wheeler then spoke regarding the application. Cllr Wheeler raised the following points, which included but were not limited to that there was surprise that this application had been called to Committee as it had been submitted on 27 February 2025, with the consultation deadline set as 27 March 2025, which was also the date of the meeting in which the application was being heard. It was outlined that Shalbourne Parish Council had only been able to submit comments on 23 March 2025. A suggestion was made that there had been no dialogue between the Council, the Local Unitary Member and the applicant and that the points raised by Forum Heritage Services in a submitted report should have been addressed by the planning officer. Cllr Wheeler also stated that this application, if refused, would show a lack of consistency, citing two other similar applications in Wilton and St. Katharine’s that had been granted planning permission and included a glass structure.

Cllr Wheeler also made additional points which included that the submitted application had been amended to take into account the views of the planning and conservation officers and that the reports should be a reminder of the merits of the case rather than only the views of the conservation officer. It was outlined that the entire development would be contained and would not adversely affect the street view with the historic elements of the building being retained and restored. It was also stated that the views of the Parish Council reflected the view of the whole village with no objections to the scheme

The Conservation/Planning Officer  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15.3

Any other items of business which, in the opinion of the Chairman, should be taken as a matter of urgency.

There were no urgent items.