Agenda item

Conversion and extension to a partially constructed single storey ancillary garden building to a 2-storey detached dwelling and associated works.

Public Participation

Chris Beaver, agent, spoke in support of the application.

Kenny Green, as Planning Manager, and in the absence of the case officer, presented the report recommending that permission be refused for the conversion and extension of a partially constructed single storey ancillary garden building to a 2-storey detached dwelling and associated works. The Committee’s attention was also drawn to the site planning history which was set out in detail in the published report.

Key issues included the impact on the setting of nearby heritage assets and the impact the proposed development would have upon the character of the area and the appropriateness of the proposed amenity provision when tested against the framework, the WCS, the made Warminster Neighbourhood Plan and the recent adopted Wiltshire Design Guide.

The Committee were informed the applicant had commenced the erection of an outbuilding which was without a roof and that the applicant maintained it was permitted development, although officers were unable to verify if that was the case since the structure was within 2m of the boundary and was very close to the 2.5m maximum height threshold, and without having a roof, it was not possible to confirm matters. Notwithstanding the above, the Committee were advised to only consider the merits of what was proposed in the form of a 2-storey dwelling.

Members of the Committee were given the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. Details were sought on the immediate heritage asset setting effects mindful of the modern construction of the of the Imber Court residential retirement home (to the south of the application site (and within the Conservation Area), confirmation was also sought that there had been no statutory objections or third-party representations received.

The appointed planning agent representing the applicant, was then able to address the Committee with his views, as detailed above.

The Local Member, Cllr Andrew Davis, then provided his reasons for the committee call-in and provided his own observations on the application’s key issues, and informed the Committee that he had only visited the site recently and after reading the published committee agenda and wished to hear from his fellow Members with the potential benefits of a Member site visit being one option.

A motion was then moved by Cllr Bill Parks, seconded by Cllr Ernie Clark, to refuse the application as recommended by officers. During debate the design of the proposed dwelling and the garden sizes for both the proposed new house and the host dwelling that would have its plot sub-divided were discussed, along with noting the reasons for dismissing the previous planning appeal by the Planning Inspectorate.  Members also wished to understand what weight a self-build proposal should be afforded in the planning balance.

At the conclusion of debate, it was,

Resolved:

To refuse planning permission for the following reasons:

1.            The proposalwould have a harmful effect onthe character and appearance of the area and the setting of the nearby designated heritage assets, which would detract from the wider uniformityand arrangementof dwellingsin thelocality. Theproposal wouldmake theexisting dwelling appear cramped on a much smaller plot, with the new dwelling being squeezed onto aplot thatis substantiallysmaller thanothers inthe locality,and wouldappear outof character with the existing built form, scale and plot size of the area. This would fail to preserve the setting of the designated conservation area and nearby Grade II listed buildings; and would result in less than substantial harm to the significance of the nearby designated heritage assets and,in theabsence of substantive public benefits to outweigh thisharm, the proposal is contrary to policies Core Policy 57 criterions iii and iv and Core Policy 58 of the adopted WiltshireCore Strategy,Policy L1of themade WarminsterNeighbourhood Plan,and conflicts with paragraphs 203, 205-208 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Section 66 and 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

2.            In order to accommodate the proposed new dwelling, the existing plot of No.6 Ash Walk would be subdivided and significantly reduced in size, resulting in an inadequately sized residual rear garden area for the occupiers of 6 Ash Walk, which would result in a diminished amenity value. Furthermore, the rear outside amenity space that would serve the new dwelling (created through the subdivision of No.6) would be of an insufficient size when assessed against the requirements of Council's adopted Design Guide. The proposal is therefore in direct conflict with criterion vii of Core Policy 57 of the adopted Wiltshire Core Strategy, Policy L1 of the made Warminster Neighbourhood Plan, chapter 9.2 of the adopted Wiltshire Design Guide and paragraph 135f of the National Planning Policy Framework which requires a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.